fuBMRV  ^ 
UNIVERSITY  OK     ; 
CALIFORNIA 
SAN  DIEGO    J 


THE   SOCIETY  OF 
FREE  STATES 

By 

DWIGHT  W.  MORROW 


Harper    &    Brothers    Publishers 
New  York   and   London 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Copyright,  1919,  by  Harper  &  Brothers 

Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 

Published  April,  1919 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

FOREWORD vii 

I.  FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT?    .    .        1 

II.  PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 12 

III.  ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION  OF  EUROPE  .      34 

IV.  THE    JURISTS,    THE    STATESMEN,    AND    THE 

DIPLOMATISTS 52 

V.  THE  INTERNATIONAL  AGENCIES  WHICH  HAVE 

BEEN  FORCED  UPON  THE  WORLD  BY  THE 
DEMANDS  OF  COMMERCE 78 

VI.  THE  INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  WHICH 

WERE  FORCED  UPON  THE  ALLIED  WORLD 
BY  THE  WAR  WITH  GERMANY  ....      99 
VH.     THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY     ....     119 
VEIL  CAN  THE  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  WORLD  ORDER 
AND     NATIONAL      INDEPENDENCE      BE 
RECONCILED? 137 

IX.  THE   DRAFT  OF  COVENANT    SUBMITTED  TO 

THE  CONFERENCE,  FEBRUARY   14,  1919    156 

X.  CONCLUSION 189 

APPENDIX 198 

INDEX  213 


FOREWORD 

papers  reprinted  in  this  book  appeared 
originally  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post 
of  February  21,  22,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  and 
March  1,  6,  and  7.  The  writer  spent  most  of 
the  year  1918  in  Europe,  in  the  work  of  the 
Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council,  where  he 
had  the  opportunity  to  see  the  great  difficulties 
in  securing  effective  international  co-operation 
even  at  a  time  when  the  Allied  Governments 
had  the  strongest  self-interest  in  working  to- 
gether. Chapter  VI  contains  some  description 
of  the  work  of  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport 
Council  and  other  co-operative  agencies  forced 
upon  the  Allies  by  the  pressure  of  the  war. 
Except  for  that  chapter  there  is  little  in  this 
volume  that  may  be  called  original.  The  aim 
of  the  writer  has  been  to  review  some  of 
the  efforts  heretofore  made  to  avert  war,  to 
consider  some  of  the  forces  that  have  been 
working  to  bring  the  world  closer  together,  to 
give  a  short  account  of  the  growth  of  the  spirit 
of  nationality,  and  to  indicate  the  conflict  be- 
tween the  national  aspirations  of  the  separate 


FOREWORD 

States  and  the  idea  of  a  League  of  Nations. 
The  papers  were  written  with  reference  to  the 
fundamental  problems  which  seem  to  underlie 
effective  co-operation  rather  than  as  a  criticism 
of  the  draft  of  Covenant  submitted  to  the 
Peace  Conference  on  February  14,  1919,  by 
the  special  Commission  on  the  League  of  Na- 
tions. A  review,  however,  of  some  of  the  prin- 
cipal features  of  that  draft  of  Covenant  will 
be  found  in  Chapter  IX. 

The  papers  have  been  slightly  revised  since 
their  appearance  in  the  New  York  Evening 
Post,  some  foot-notes  have  been  added,  and  a 
short  bibliography  is  given  at  the  end  of  each 
chapter.  The  literature  on  the  subject,  es- 
pecially during  the  last  year,  is  very  large,  and 
no  effort  has  been  made  to  give  a  complete 
bibliography  of  the  authorities  consulted. 

The  writer  is  conscious  of  the  shortcomings 
of  this  volume.  Faults  in  style  will  be  for- 
given in  a  book  written  necessarily  in  haste; 
faults  in  substance  or  in  reasoning  perhaps  will 
be  corrected  by  others.  There  is  one  thing  to 
be  said  for  a  book,  even  with  faults,  upon  the 
important  topic  of  world  organization — it  may 
present  a  point  of  view  which  will  lead  to  a 
better  book. 

D.  W.  M. 

March  20,  1919. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 


And  here  I  think  that  I  may  make  an  end; 
not  that  I  have  said  all  that  might  be  said,  but 
that  enough  has  been  said  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions; on  which,  if  any  one  will  erect  a  fairer 
superstructure,  he  will  be  so  far  from  being  the 
object  of  any  grudging  on  my  part,  that  I  shall 
be  grateful  to  him.  Only  before  I  dismiss 
the  reader,  as  when  I  spoke  of  undertaking 
a  war,  I  added  admonitions  on  the  duty  of 
avoiding  war  as  much  as  possible,  so  now  I 
will  add  a  few  admonitions  which  may  tend- 
in  war,  and  after  war,  to  the  preservation  of 
good  faith  and  peace;  and  of  good  faith,  both 
on  other  accounts,  and  that  the  hope  of  peace 
may  not  be  destroyed.  For  not  only  is  each 
commonwealth  kept  together  by  good  faith,  as 
Cicero  says,  but  that  greater  society  of 
which  nations  are  the  members.  If  FAITH 
be  taken  away,  as  Aristotle  says,  THE 

INTERCOURSE     OF    MEN    IS    ABOLISHED. 

Grotius  (1625). 


THE   SOCIETY   OF 
FREE   STATES 


FOR  four  years  and  a  half  the  greater  portion 
of  the  world  has  been  engaged  in  a  lif  e-and- 
death  struggle  with  the  Central  Powers.  On 
the  day  the  armistice  was  signed  twenty  States 
were  at  war  with  Germany.  The  wreckage 
cannot  yet  be  appraised.  Many  millions  of 
men — young  men  who  held  the  promise  of  the 
future — have  been  killed.  Many  more  have 
been  permanently  maimed.  So  long  as  the 
present  generation  lives  men  without  arms  or 
legs  will  be  a  part  of  our  community  life.  Why 
have  men  fought  and  died?  Why  have  they 
lived  for  months  and  years  under  almost  in- 
conceivable hardships  ?  Surely  not  because  they 
had  any  interest  in  Francis  Ferdinand  of 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Austria,  who  was  murdered  by  a  Serbian  at 
Sarajevo  on  June  28,  1914.  Probably  the 
majority  of  the  soldiers  in  the  field  on 
November  11,  1918,  when  the  armistice  was 
signed,  had  never  heard  of  Sarajevo. 

From  the  earliest  times  men  have  fought 
one  another  individually,  and  the  groups  into 
which  they  have  associated  themselves  have 
fought  each  other.  Theoretical  writers  have 
pictured  a  golden  age  from  which  we  have  de- 
generated. There  is  no  warrant  for  such  a 
belief.  Neither  permanent  peace  nor  permanent 
war  can  be  called  the  natural  state  of  mankind. 
Man  from  the  beginning  has  been,  and  is  now, 
both  peaceful  and  warlike.  If  we  look  upon 
peace  simply  as  cessation  of  warfare  between 
separate  States  there  would  obviously  be  peace 
if  the  whole  world  came  under  the  sway  of  a 
single  State.  The  world  almost  attained  such 
a  peace  under  the  Roman  Empire,  but  it  was 
peace  by  force.  During  the  Middle  Ages  there 
was  a  qualified  peace  under  the  Church,  but  it 
was  more  apparent  than  real.  With  the  break- 
up of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  and  the  schism 
in  the  Church,  there  began  the  period  of  the 
modern  national  State.  The  growth  of  the 
national  States  has  been  marked  by  alternate 
periods  of  peace  and  war.  States  have  fought 
for  boundaries,  for  religion,  for  property  and 


FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT  ? 

trade,  for  honor.  The  temptation  is  great  to 
seek  a  simple  explanation  of  war.  Some  have 
attributed  wars  to  the  pride  and  greed  of  auto- 
cratic leaders,  forgetting  the  waves  of  passion 
that  sweep  over  countries,  compelling  leaders 
to  bend  to  that  passion  or  lose  their  high  place. 
Some  attribute  wars  to  the  growth  of  modern 
capitalism,  forgetting  that  there  were  bitter 
wars  before  modern  capitalism  existed.  Some 
attribute  wars  to  armament  firms  and  others 
to  unpreparedness.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there 
is  no  short  formula.  The  settlement  of  disputes 
within  a  State  by  the  rule  of  reason — with  all 
the  imperfections  of  its  application — has  be- 
come more  and  more  established.  But  the 
differences  between  States  have  continued,  and 
at  times  have  reached  such  a  stage  of  acuteness 
that  rulers  and  people  have  been  willing  to 
spend  their  lives  and  fortunes  in  defending 
their  side  of  the  cause. 

As  the  world  has  grown  older  the  general 
tendency  has  been  for  the  different  units  which 
we  call  States  to  amalgamate,  with  the  result 
that  the  number  of  the  units  becomes  smaller 
and  the  size  of  a  single  unit  larger.  This 
tendency  to  amalgamation  naturally  results 
from  increasing  contact  between  two  units.  If 
we  could  conceive  to-day  of  two  States  entirely 
separated,  with  no  interchange  of  travelers,  or 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

traders,  or  missionaries,  there  would  be  little 
chance  of  war  between  them.  As  the  separate 
units  come  in  contact  with  one  another,  how- 
ever, differences  disclose  themselves.  These 
differences  must  be  settled.  If  they  cannot  be 
settled  by  agreement,  they  may  become  so  vital 
that  men  will  feel  they  can  be  settled  only  by 
force.  The  settlement  of  differences  at  any  par- 
ticular time,  whether  by  agreement  or  by  force, 
may  result  in  the  two  units  remaining  inde- 
pendent, and  thereafter  having  close  relation- 
ships with  each  other  under  some  modus  Vivendi 
which  enables  them  to  adjust  from  time  to 
time  differences  as  they  arise.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  may  result  in  the  two  States  being 
amalgamated  into  a  single  State.  Such  a  proc- 
ess of  amalgamation  went  on  in  France  five 
hundred  years  ago,  such  a  process  brought 
England  and  Scotland  and  Wales  together,  such 
a  process  made  Texas  a  part  of  the  United 
States,  such  a  process  made  a  united  Italy. 
Obviously,  amalgamations  of  this  kind  can  come 
about  in  only  two  ways — by  force  or  by  agree- 
ment; and  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  are 
many  more  instances  in  history  of  amalgama- 
tion by  force  than  by  agreement. 

With  the  growth  of  civilization,  with  the  in- 
crease of  connecting  links  between  the  great 
civilized  States,  we  had  generally  come  to  be- 


FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT? 

lieve  that  the  time-honored  practice  of  incor- 
porating one  State  into  another  by  the  method 
of  force  had  gone  by,  and  that  future  consolida- 
tions of  States  would  come  only  by  agreement. 
We  were  mistaken.  Prussia,  by  its  conduct  in 
1864,  in  1866,  in  1870,  had  given  the  world  every 
reason  to  believe  that  it  still  adhered  to  the 
method  of  force.  America  declined  to  believe 
it  until  Prussia  struck  in  1914.  For  four  years 
and  a  half  the  world  has  been  fighting  as  a 
protest  against  this  ancient  method  of  force. 
It  has  been  fighting  to  demonstrate  that  such 
a  method  is  impossible  of  success.  It  has  been 
fighting  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  that  method 
ever  being  used  again.  The  world  has  been 
fighting  in  the  hope  that  some  means  may  be 
found  to  substitute  agreement  for  force.  As 
Mr.  Asquith  put  it,  we  have  been  fighting  for 
the  "  enthronement  of  the  idea  of  public  right." 
Germany  made  many  protests  that  other  States 
had  used  the  method  of  force  in  times  gone 
by.  Let  that  be  admitted.  All  the  more  reason 
was  there  for  joining  together  to  denounce  the 
precedents  which  seemed  to  warrant  such  a 
tragedy.  President  Wilson  stated  the  issue  in 
his  Mount  Vernon  speech: 

The  past  and  the  present  are  in  deadly  grapple 
and  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  being  done  to 
2  5 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

death  between  them.  There  can  be  but  one  issue. 
The  settlement  must  be  final.  There  can  be  no 
compromise.  No  half-way  decision  would  be  toler- 
able. No  half-way  decision  is  conceivable. 

There  has  been  no  compromise.  Germany 
has  been  beaten.  Her  defeat  has  been  more 
crushing  than  most  people  expected.  We  have 
proved  to  ourselves,  and  to  the  rulers  and  people 
of  Germany,  that  for  her  this  war  has  not  paid. 
We  have  shown  that  even  an  unprepared  world 
has  been  able  to  arise  in  its  wrath  to  stop- 
though  at  fearful  cost — the  pretensions  of  auto- 
cratic power  to  impose  its  will  by  force  upon 
its  neighbors.  The  world  at  least  has  gained 
that  much  from  the  war.  But  is  that  enough? 

The  leading  statesmen  of  all  the  countries 
have  pronounced  that  it  is  not  enough.  They 
have  promised  the  people  a  new  world  order. 
Very  early  in  the  war  Mr.  Asquith  expressed 
the  hope  that  the  ending  of  the  war  would 
bring  a  "real  European  partnership,"  and  he 
went  on  to  say:  "A  year  ago  that  would  have 
sounded  like  a  Utopian  idea.  It  is  probably 
one  that  may  not,  or  will  not,  be  realized  either 
to-day  or  to-morrow.  If  and  when  this  war  is 
decided  in  favor  of  the  Allies  it  will  at  once 
come  within  the  range,  and  before  long  within 
the  grasp,  of  European  statesmanship."  As  the 
intensity  and  destructiveness  of  the  war  in- 


FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT? 

creased,  the  leaders  of  the  warring  States  became 
more  and  more  convinced  that  something  must 
be  done  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  such  a  trag- 
edy. President  Wilson  in  the  speech  which  sets 
forth  his  fourteen  points  refers  to  this  war  as 
the  "culminating  and  final  war  for  human  lib- 
erty." Mr.  Lloyd  George  stated  in  his  address 
on  September  12, 1918,  that  "this  must  be  the 
last  war";  and  on  November  11, 1918,  when  he 
announced  the  terms  of  the  armistice,  he  said: 
"I  hope  we  may  say  that  thus,  this  fateful 
morning,  came  an  end  to  all  wars."  Mr.  Taft 
was  reported  in  the  London  Times  of  December 
10,  1918,  as  having  said:  "I  say  to  you  that 
unless  a  league  of  nations  emerges  from  the 
conference  in  Paris  the  whole  war  is  a  failure." 
And  it  is  not  only  in  the  words  of  statesmen 
that  this  desire  for  some  new  international  order 
is  heard.  Millions  of  people  are  expecting  some 
concrete  realization  of  the  promises  of  the 
statesmen.  In  the  statement  of  the  Inter-Allied 
Labor  War  Aims  it  is  expressed  thus :  "  Who- 
ever triumphs,  the  people  will  have  lost  unless 
an  international  system  is  established  which 
will  prevent  war."  And  Mr.  Samuel  Gompers, 
in  presenting  the  war  aims  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  to  the  Inter-Allied  Labor 
and  Socialist  Conference  held  in  London  on 
September  18,  1918,  stated  that  the  first 

7 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES, 

fundamental  principle  which  must  underlie 
the  Peace  Treaty  should  be  "a  League  of 
the  free  peoples  of  the  world  in  a  common 
Covenant  for  genuine  and  practical  co-opera- 
tion to  secure  justice,  and  therefore  peace,  in 
relations  between  nations." 

It  will  not  suffice  to  tell  the  people  that  a 
solution  is  impracticable.  You  cannot  per- 
manently combat  an  ideal  with  a  negation;  you 
can  combat  it  only  with  another  ideal.  The 
people  of  Russia  are  seeking  international  peace 
by  a  new  pathway.  Will  it  be  of  any  avail  to 
tell  them  that  their  pathway  does  not  lead  to 
the  goal  they  seek?  The  statesmen  must  offer 
the  world  a  remedy,  a  remedy  that  promises  a 
hope  of  avoiding,  or  reducing  the  frequency  of, 
future  armed  conflicts.  And  the  statesmen 
must  not  be  afraid  to  try  new  methods.  In  the 
words  of  President  Wilson: 

If  hopeful  and  generous  enterprise  is  to  be  re- 
newed, if  the  healing  and  helpful  arts  of  life  are  to 
be  revived  when  peace  conies  again,  a  new  at- 
mosphere of  justice  and  friendship  must  be  gen- 
erated by  means  the  world  has  never  tried  before. 

There  are  two  implications  in  the  expression 
just  quoted.  The  first  is  that  the  vital  thing 
is  to  generate  "a  new  atmosphere  of  justice 
and  friendship";  the  second  is  that  in  trying  to 


FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT  ? 

generate  and  maintain  this  justice  and  friend- 
ship men  must  have  the  courage  to  try  methods 
that  have  never  been  tried  before.  However 
widely  men  may  differ  as  to  methods,  no  rational 
man  can  dissent  from  the  desire  of  the  President 
as  thus  expressed.  It  is  surely  idle  to  expect 
leagues,  or  partnerships,  or  societies,  or  high 
courts  of  justice,  to  be  effective  unless  the  great 
body  of  mankind  wants  justice  and  friendship 
more  than  it  has  wanted  them  before.  Moreover, 
the  leaders  of  the  present  generation  would  be 
falling  far  short  of  their  duty  and  their  op- 
portunity if,  in  seeking  this  justice  and  friend- 
ship, they  did  not  improve  upon  former  meth- 
ods. This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  we 
can  ignore  the  means  which  the  world  has  tried 
before.  If  for  no  other  reason  than  to  avoid 
discredited  or  unwise  methods,  it  is  important 
that  we  should  know  what  methods  have  been 
tried  and  why  they  have  partially  or  wholly 
failed. 

For  purposes  of  convenience  we  may  con- 
sider former  efforts  to  secure  international  co- 
operation under  five  headings: 

(1)  Plans  for  perpetual  peace; 

(2)  Attempts  to  create  a  confederation  of  Europe 
after  the  Napoleonic  Wars; 

(3)  Efforts  of  jurists,  statesmen  and  diplomatists 

9 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

to  substitute  agreement  for  force  in  the  settlement 
of  international  disputes; 

(4)  The  international  co-operation  forced  on  the 
world  by  science  and  commerce; 

(5)  The  international  machinery  adopted  by  the 
Allied  nations  by  reason  of  the  pressure  of  the  war 
with  Germany. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  the  foregoing  classi- 
fication is  a  strictly  scientific  one,  or  even  that 
it  is  the  best  one.  It  will  permit,  however,  a 
brief  review  of  the  failures  and  successes  of 
those  who  have  gone  before  us.  We  may  be 
able  to  see  a  little  farther  ahead  if  we  are  willing 
to  stand  on  the  shoulders  of  our  fathers. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

WILLIAM  GRAHAM  SUMNER,  "War,'*  in  War  and 
Other  Essays,  pp.  3-40,  edited  by  Albert  Gallo- 
way Keller. 

President  Wilson's  Foreign  Policy,  edited  by  James 
Brown  Scott,  containing  the  addresses  of  the 
President  to  April  6,  1918.  For  his  addresses 
subsequent  to  that  date,  see  the  daily  press. 

A  League  of  Nations,  Bimonthly  Pamphlets  of  the 
World  Peace  Foundation,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  con- 
taining "What  We  Are  Fighting  For,"  by 
President  Wilson,  ex-President  Taft,  and  Presi- 
dent Lowell,  of  Harvard  University;  Vol.  I, 

No.  3,  containing  "War  Aims  of  Belligerents 
10 


FOR  WHAT  HAS  THE  WORLD  FOUGHT  ? 

as  Elicited  by  Russia's  Attempt  to  Secure  a 
General  Peace." 

JAMES  BRYCE  (Viscount  Bryce),  Essays  and  Ad- 
dresses in  Wartime,  especially  "The  Attitude 
of  Great  Britain  in  the  Present  War,"  pp.  17 
to  38;  "The  War  State:  Its  Mind  and  Its 
Methods,"  pp.  39  to  64;  "The  War  and  Human 
Progress,"  pp.  65  to  91. 

G.  LOWES  DICKINSON,  The  European  Anarchy. 


three  hundred  years  and  more  philoso- 
phers  and  statesmen  have  dreamed  of  per- 
petual peace,  and  from  time  to  time — especially 
when  the  horrors  of  war  were  fresh  in  mind — 
men  have  put  forward  plans  which  they  thought 
would  make  that  dream  come  true.  It  is  worth 
our  while  to  review  some  of  these  projects. 

One  of  the  earliest  of  the  peace  plans  was 
that  of  Emeric  Grace",  who  published  at  Paris, 
in  1623,  a  book  called,  Le  Nouveau  Cynee, 
which  he  described  in  the  sub-title  as  a  "Dis- 
course of  the  Occasions  and  Means  to  Establish 
a  General  Peace,  and  the  Liberty  of  Commerce 
Throughout  the  Whole  World."  l  This  book 

1  For  the  sake  of  saving  space,  Dante's  ideal  of  a  universal 
Christian  empire,  expressed  in  his  De  Monarchia,  the  scheme  of 
Pierre  Dubois  for  a  general  European  alliance  and  a  permanent 
Court  of  Arbitration,  set  forth  in  1305  in  his  De  Recuperatione 
Terre  Sancte,  and  Antoine  Marini's  proposal  for  a  federation  of 
the  Christian  States  of  Europe,  presented  in  1460,  are  passed 
over  with  no  further  mention. 

A  copy  of  Cruce's  book  came  to  the  Harvard  University  Li- 
brary in  1874  through  the  private  library  of  Charles  Sumner.  In 

12 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

was  published  while  the  destructive  Thirty 
Years'  War  was  in  its  early  stages.  The  re- 
markable thing  about  Cruc4's  work  is  not  his 
plan  of  world  organization,  but  the  fact  that  a 
monk  and  pedagogue  in  the  early  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century  should  lay  so  much  stress 
upon  the  value  of  international  commerce  in 
bringing  about  world  peace.  He  no  doubt  re- 
flected the  spirit  of  a  Europe  which  was  in  the 
midst  of  the  Commercial  Revolution  when  he 
tells  us  that  "there  is  no  occupation  to  com- 
pare in  utility  with  that  of  the  merchant  who 
legitimately  increases  his  resources  by  the  ex- 
penditure of  his  labor  and  often  at  the  peril 
of  his  life,  without  injuring  or  offending  any- 
one: in  which  he  is  more  worthy  of  praise  than 
the  soldier,  whose  advancement  depends  upon 
the  spoil  and  destruction  of  others.  And  since 
it  is  now  the  question  how  to  banish  idleness, 
and  divert  the  evil  ideas  that  it  ordinarily  causes 
in  the  minds  of  ne'er-do-wells,  there  is  no  better 
expedient  for  that  than  commerce,  to  which 
Princes  must  urge  their  subjects  by  every  sort 
of  expedient."  To  the  end  that  this  commerce 
on  sea  and  land  might  be  promoted,  Grace"  pro- 


1909  it  was  translated  by  Thomas  Willing  Balch,  the  French  text 
and  Mr.  Balch's  translation  being  published  by  Allen,  Lane  & 
Scott,  of  Philadelphia.  All  the  quotations  from  Cruce  given  in 
this  article  are  from  the  translation  of  Mr.  Balch. 

13 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

posed  the  abolition  of  piracy,  the  undertaking 
of  artificial  waterways,  a  uniform  standard  of 
money  and  of  weights.  In  all  of  this  Cruce 
sought  "a  peace,  which  is  not  patched  up,  nor 
for  three  days,  but  which  is  voluntary,  equitable, 
and  permanent,  a  peace  which  gives  to  each 
one  what  belongs  to  him,  privilege  to  the  citi- 
zen, hospitality  to  the  foreigner,  and  to  all  in- 
differently the  liberty  of  travel  and  trading.'* 

To  bring  about  this  peace  and  "to  assure  it  to 
perpetuity:  which  is  very  difficult,"  Cruce"  pro- 
posed that  a  city  be  chosen,  for  which  purpose 
he  suggested  Venice,  "where  all  sovereigns 
should  have  perpetually  their  ambassadors  in 
order  that  the  differences  that  might  arise 
should  be  settled  by  the  judgment  of  the  whole 
assembly."  The  great  republics  would  likewise 
have  their  agents  in  the  same  place.  This  great 
assembly  was  to  consist  of  the  Pope,  the  Sultan 
of  Turkey,  the  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  the  King  of  France,  the  King  of  Spain, 
the  King  of  Persia,  the  King  of  China,  Prester 
John,  the  Precop  of  Tartary,  the  Grand  Duke 
of  Muscovy,  the  Kings  of  Great  Britain,  Poland, 
Denmark,  Sweden,  Japan,  and  Morocco,  the 
Great  Mogul  and  other  monarchs  as  well  from 
India  as  from  Africa.  The  order  of  precedence 
of  the  principal  partners  is  carefully  set  forth, 
and  the  kings  and  emperors  were  to  judge  the 

14 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

precedences  of  princes  of  lesser  ranks  and  to 
"assign  to  each  his  place,  which  they  will 
accept,  as  is  to  be  presumed,  with  good  will." 
All  the  princes  were  to  hold  as  inviolable  law 
what  would  be  ordained  by  the  majority  of 
votes  in  the  assembly.  Discontents  were  to  be 
met  half-way  and  appeased  "by  gentle  means, 
if  it  could  be  done,  or,  in  case  of  necessity,  by 
force." 

Cruce's  whole  book  is  addressed  to  princes, 
who  are  described  as  "images  of  God,  guardians 
of  peoples,  destined  to  heal  not  to  wound,  to 
build  not  to  destroy."  The  princes  can  bring 
about  peace  if  they  will,  and  they  can  there- 
after maintain  it  if  they  will  govern  the  people 
in  accordance  with  wise  policy.  "Only  let 
peace  be  published  By  the  Orders  of  the  King. 
These  words  will  make  their  arms  drop  from 
their  hands.  There  will  be  perhaps  a  little 
difficulty  to  bring  back  to  a  peaceful  life  the 
Turks  and  the  Tartars,  who  do  not  voluntarily 
do  any  other  work  except  war:  but  those  people 
show  such  obedience  to  their  Princes,  that  see- 
ing them  resolved  on  peace,  they  will  not  dare 
to  contradict  them."  There  is  a  quaint  passage 
in  which  Cruce  describes  the  character  of  the 
people  who  are  thus  readily  to  follow  the  com- 
mands of  their  princes:  "But  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  men  augment  greatly  their  miseries 

15 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

through  impatience  and  dissatisfaction.  They 
no  sooner  feel  the  least  pain  than  they  wish  to 
apply  to  it  a  violent  remedy.  They  bark 
against  tyranny,  which  nevertheless  they  ex- 
ercise in  their  houses  with  impunity.  Do  we  not 
see  the  injustices  that  masters  do  to  their  valets, 
fathers  to  their  children,  preceptors  to  their 
disciples?  It  is  a  common  vice  to  abuse  one's 
power  and  show  oneself  insolent  to  one's 
inferiors.  I  do  not  say  this  to  excuse  the  bad 
princes,  which  one  cannot  too  much  condemn, 
but  to  show  that  it  is  better  to  have  a  catarrhal 
head  than  not  to  have  any  at  all,  and  that 
tyranny  does  not  free  subjects  from  the  obedi- 
ence which  they  owe  to  their  sovereign." 

Cruce  was  so  far  ahead  of  his  age  in  his  con- 
ception of  trade  and  commerce  that  it  is  all 
the  more  surprising  that  he  did  not  see  (or, 
if  he  saw,  that  he  was  afraid  to  express)  the 
national  aspirations  of  the  people  of  Europe 
or  the  stirrings  of  political  and  religious  liberty. 
He  thus  disposes  of  the  two  great  religious 
reformers:  "Luther  and  Calvin,  what  a  mess 
have  they  not  made  with  their  tongues  and 
writings,  under  pretense  of  reforming  the  abuses 
of  Christianity!  Such  people  must  be  antici- 
pated, and  forbidden  to  dogmatize  either  in 
public  or  in  private*  under  penalty  of  rigorous 
punishment.  For  they  attract  the  people  which 

16 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

allows  itself  to  be  easily  led  off  by  the  appear- 
ance of  piety,  as  well  as  by  the  hope  of  liberty 
or  a  better  condition."  In  his  new  government 
of  the  world,  which  might  conceivably  have 
to  deal  with  such  anticipations  and  forbiddings, 
the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  the  King  of  Persia,  the 
King  of  China,  and  the  Grand  Duke  of  Muscovy 
were  to  sit  at  a  table  with  the  King  of  France 
and  have  an  equal  vote  with  him.  Prester 
John  and  the  Precop  of  Tartary  were  also  to 
be  there,  if  anybody  could  find  them.2 

The  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV  is  probably 
the  best  known  of  all  the  early  peace  plans. 
Henry  IV  was  King  of  France  from  1589  to  1610. 
The  memoirs  of  his  minister,  the  Duke  of  Sully, 
were  published  in  four  volumes,  the  first  two 
in  1634,  the  third  and  fourth  in  1662.  There 
are  references  to  the  Great  Design  in  all  the 
volumes,  but  the  fourth  volume  contains  the 
chapter  which  sets  forth  the  plan  in  some  detail.3 
For  our  purposes  it  is  now  not  material  whether 

2  Prester  John  was  a  mythical  king,  located  sometimes  in 
Africa,  sometimes  in  India,  and  sometimes  in  China  (see  Chey- 
ney's  European  Background  of  American  History,  pp.  8,  61,  63). 
By  the  Precop  of  Tartary  was  probably  meant  the  Khan  of  the 
Krim  Tartars,  who  lived  in  Cruc^'s  time  in  Southeastern  Russia, 
in  the  Crimean  district. 

3  The  chapter  from  the  fourth  volume  is  reprinted  in  a  volume 
entitled  The  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV,  published  for  the  Inter- 
national School  of  Peace  by  Ginn  &  Co.,  in  1909,  with  an  intro- 
duction by  Edwin  D.  Mead.    The  quotations  from  the  Great 
Design  are  from  this  American  book.  * 

17 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

the  plan  was  really  Henry's  or  whether,  as  is 
more  probable,  it  was  wholly  or  partially  an 
invention  of  Sully's.  The  Great  Design  con- 
templated the  establishment  of  a  universal 
Christian  republic  in  Europe,  comprising  six 
hereditary  monarchies,  five  elective  monarchies, 
and  four  republics  "in  such  a  manner  that 
none  of  them  might  have  cause  either  of  envy 
or  fear  from  the  possessions  or  power  of  the 
others."  A  general  council  of  Europe  was  to 
be  formed,  modeled  on  the  Amphictyonic  Coun- 
cil of  Greece.  This  council  was  to  consist  of 
commissioners,  ministers,  or  plenipotentiaries 
from  the  various  powers.  It  was  contemplated 
that  there  should  be  four  commissioners  from 
each  of  the  large  powers  and  two  from  the  re- 
publics and  inferior  powers.  The  members  of 
the  councils  were  to  be  constantly  assembled 
"to  deliberate  on  any  affairs  which  might  occur, 
to  discuss  the  different  interests,  pacify  the 
quarrels,  clear  up  and  determine  all  the  civil, 
political,  and  religious  affairs  of  Europe,  whether 
within  itself  or  with  its  neighbors."  It  was  not 
determined  whether  the  council  should  meet 
at  a  fixed  place  or  whether  it  should  travel 
from  city  to  city.  It  was  thought  possible  that, 
in  addition  to  the  general  council,  there  might 
be  needed  subordinate  councils  acting  under 
the  general  council.  "The  laws  and  ordinances 

18 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

proper  to  cement  a  union  between  all  these 
princes,  and  to  maintain  that  harmony  which 
should  be  at  once  established  among  them,  the 
reciprocal  oaths  and  engagements  in  regard  both 
to  religion  and  policy,  the  mutual  assurances  in 
respect  to  the  freedom  of  commerce,  and  the 
measures  to  be  taken  to  make  all  these  parti- 
tions with  equity  and  to  the  general  content 
and  satisfaction  of  the  parties;  all  these  matters 
are  to  be  understood,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  say 
anything  of  the  precaution  taken  by  Henry  in 
regard  to  them.  The  most  that  could  have 
happened  would  have  been  some  trifling  diffi- 
culties, which  would  easily  have  been  obviated 
in  the  general  council,  representing  all  the 
states  of  Europe,  the  establishment  of  which 
was  certainly  the  happiest  invention  that  could 
have  been  conceived  to  prevent  those  innova- 
tions which  time  often  introduces  in  the  wisest 
and  most  useful  institutions." 

This  ambitious  program  required  a  complete 
remaking  of  the  map  of  Europe.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  Design  was  really  a  great 
military  coalition  directed  against  Austria  and 
Spain.  The  House  of  Austria  was  to  be  deprived 
of  its  leadership  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
and  of  all  its  possessions  in  Europe  except  the 
Kingdom  of  Spain.  It  was  to  be  indemnified, 
however,  by  having  turned  over  to  it  certain 

19 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

European  islands  and  by  the  increase  of  its 
dominions  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  includ- 
ing America.  It  was  to  be  declared  "the  sole 
proprietor  both  of  what  we  do  know  and  of 
what  we  may  hereafter  discover  in  those  parts." 
It  was  expected  that  Austria  and  Spain  would 
bow  before  such  a  military  coalition.  If  they 
declined  to  do  so,  then  all  the  powerful  princes 
of  Europe,  most  of  whom  were  to  receive  some- 
thing, were  to  impose  the  new  dispensation 
by  force  of  arms.  It  was  recognized  that  three 
religions  prevailed  in  Europe — the  Roman,  the 
Protestant,  and  the  Reformed.  These  religions 
were  to  be  preserved  and  strengthened  "in 
such  a  manner,  nevertheless,  that  this  indul- 
gence may  not  become  an  encouragement  to 
the  production  of  new  sects  or  opinions,  which 
should  carefully  be  suppressed  on  their  first 
appearance."  The  carrying  out  of  the  plan 
was  interrupted  (according  to  Sully)  by  the 
death  of  Henry  at  the  hand  of  an  assassin  in 
1610. 

William  Perm  published  an  essay,  Towards 
the  Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe,  in  1693, 
while  the  wars  of  conquest  of  Louis  XIV  were 
still  going  on.4  Penn  pointed  out  the  great  bless- 

4  This  essay  has  been  reprinted  in  a  pamphlet  published  by 
the  American  Peace  Society  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  1912, 
from  which  pamphlet  the  Quotations  from  Penn  are  taken. 

20 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

ings  and  beauties  of  peace,  which  can  be  ap- 
preciated best  during  the  tragedy  of  war.  It 
is  through  justice  that  peace  is  procured  and 
preserved.  "That  which  prevents  a  civil  war 
in  a  nation  is  that  which  may  prevent  it  abroad, 
viz.:  Justice."  Governments  are  expedients 
against  confusion.  At  first  man  was  governed 
by  the  head  of  a  family.  Until  society  was 
formed  every  man  "is  his  own  king,  does  what 
he  lists  at  his  own  peril."  But  when  he  submits 
to  society  he  submits  himself  to  the  law.  "So 
depraved  is  human  nature,  that  without  com- 
pulsion some  way  or  other,  too  many  would 
not  readily  be  brought  to  do  what  they  know 
is  right  and  fit,  or  avoid  what  they  are  satisfied 
they  should  not  do."  This  brings  Penn  to  his 
solution.  As  men  have  submitted  themselves 
to  government,  so  the  various  governments 
should  submit  themselves  to  a  higher  govern- 
ment. "If  the  Soveraign  Princes  of  Europe, 
who  represent  that  society,  or  independent 
state  of  men  that  was  previous  to  the  obliga- 
tions of  society,  would,  for  the  same  Reason 
that  engaged  men  first  into  society,  viz. :  Love 
of  peace  and  order,  agree  to  meet  by  their 
stated  deputies  in  a  general  dyet,  estates,  or 
parliament,  and  there  establish  rules  of  justice 
for  soveraign  princes  to  observe  one  to  another; 

and  thus  to  meet  yearly,  or  once  in  two  or  three 
3  21 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

years  at  farthest,  or  as  they  shall  see  cause,  and 
to  be  stiled,  the  Soveraign  or  Imperial  Dyet, 
Parliament,  or  State  of  Europe;  before  which 
soveraign  assembly,  should  be  brought  all  dif- 
ferences depending  between  one  soveraign  and 
another,  that  can  not  be  made  up  by  private 
embassies,  before  the  sessions  begin;  and  that 
if  any  of  the  soveraignties  that  constitute  these 
imperial  States  shall  refuse  to  submit  their  claim 
or  pretensions  to  them,  or  to  abide  and  per- 
form the  judgment  thereof,  and  seek  their  remedy 
by  arms,  or  delay  their  compliance  beyond  the 
time  prefixt  in  their  resolutions,  all  the  other 
soveraignties,  united  as  one  strength,  shall  com- 
pel the  submission  and  performance  of  the  sen- 
tence, with  damages  to  the  suffering  party,  and 
charges  to  the  soveraignties  that  obliged  their 
submission." 

Penn  proposed  that  in  this  general  parlia- 
ment the  votes  of  the  several  States  should  be 
in  accordance  with  "the  yearly  value  of  the 
several  soveraign  countries."  This  yearly  value 
is  to  be  estimated  "by  considering  the  revenue 
of  lands,  the  exports  and  entries  at  the  custom- 
houses, the  books  and  rates,  and  surveys  that 
are  in  all  governments."  Penn  made  a  sugges- 
tion as  to  the  representation  of  the  States 
"wholly  by  guess,  being  but  for  example's 

22 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

sake."5  This  suggestion  allowed  "the  Empire 
of  Germany  to  send  twelve;  France,  ten;  Spain, 
ten;  Italy,  which  comes  to  France,  eight;  Eng- 
land, six;  Portugal,  three;  Sweedland,  four; 
Denmark,  three;  Poland,  four;  Venice,  three; 
the  Seven  Provinces,  four;  the  Thirteen  Can- 
tons and  little  Neighbouring  Soveraignties,  two; 
Dukedoms  of  Holstein  and  Courland,  one;  and 
if  the  Turks  and  Muscovites  are  taken  in,  as 
seems  but  fit  and  just,  they  will  make  ten  apiece 
more.  The  whole  makes  ninety."  To  avoid 
quarrels  about  precedency,  Penn  suggested  that 
the  room  in  which  the  council  met  should  be 
round,  with  "divers  doors  to  come  in  and  go 


5  This  question  of  distributing  the  voting  power,  which  Penn 
dismissed  so  lightly,  has  been  one  of  the  most  obstinate  problems 
involved  in  all  interstate  organizations.  The  experience  of  the 
American  Colonies  and  States  is  a  case  in  point.  When  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  assembled  on  September  5,  1774,  the  question 
as  to  the  method  of  voting  arose  at  the  very  outset.  John  Adams 
in  his  diary  thus  states  the  difficulty:  "If  we  vote  by  interests, 
it  will  be  attended  with  insuperable  difficulties  to  ascertain  the 
true  importance  of  each  Colony.  Is  the  weight  of  a  Colony  to 
be  ascertained  by  the  number  of  inhabitants  merely,  or  by  the 
amount  of  their  trade,  the  quantity  of  their  exports  and  imports, 
or  by  any  compound  ratio  of  both?  This  will  lead  us  to  such  a 
field  of  controversy  as  will  greatly  perplex  us."  (See  Works  of 
John  Adams,  Vol.  II,  p.  366.)  The  Continental  Congress  de- 
bated this  question  with  considerable  bitterness  until  October, 
1777,  when  it  was  determined  that  each  Colony  should  have  one 
vote.  Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  edition  of  1904,  Vol. 
I,  p.  25;  Vol.  II,  p.  221;  Vol.  V,  pp.  548  and  550;  Vol.  IX,  pp. 
779-782.  How  near  it  came  to  wrecking  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tional Convention  is  well  known. 

23 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

out  at."  Apparently,  the  votes  of  each  state 
were  to  be  cast  as  a  unit.  To  prevent  cor- 
ruption, voting  was  to  be  secret.  Nothing 
was  to  pass  without  a  three-quarters  vote  of 
the  whole,  because  thereby  "if  money  could 
ever  be  a  temptation  in  such  a  court,  it  would 
cost  a  great  deal  of  money  to  weigh  down  the 
wrong  scale."  Penn's  whole  plan  for  peace  was 
based  upon  the  belief  that  "Wars  are  Duels  of 
Princes."  If  this  were  but  true,  how  much 
easier  would  be  the  solution! 

The  Abbe  de  St.  Pierre,  who  had  attended 
the  conference  which  led  to  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht,  published  in  1712  an  essay  outlining 
his  plan  for  perpetual  peace,  which  he  expanded 
into  a  work  of  two  volumes  published  in  1713, 
followed  by  a  third  volume  in  1717.  His  plan 
was  based  upon  the  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV. 
The  following  were  the  fundamental  principles 
and  propositions  involved  in  the  Abbess  scheme  :6 

(1)  There  shall  be  from  this  day  forward  a  Society, 
a  permanent  and  perpetual  Union  between  the 
undersigned  Sovereigns,  and,  if  possible,  among  all 
Christian  Sovereigns,  to  preserve  unbroken  peace 
in  Europe.  The  Sovereigns  shall  be  perpetually 
represented  by  their  Deputies  in  a  perpetual  Con- 
gress or  Senate  in  a  free  city. 

6  W.  E.  Darby,  International  Tribunals,  edition  of  1904,  pp. 
70-76. 

24 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

(2)  The  European  Society  shall  not  at  all  inter- 
fere with  the  Government  of  any  State,  except  to 
preserve  its  constitution,  and  to  render  prompt  and 
adequate  assistance  to  rulers  and  chief  magistrates 
against  seditious  persons  and  rebels. 

(3)  The  Union  shall  employ  its  whole  strength 
and  care  in  order,  during  regencies,  minorities,  or 
feeble  reigns,  to  prevent  injury  to  the  Sovereign, 
either  in  his  person  or  prerogatives,  or  to  the  Sover- 
eign House,  and  in  case  of  such  shall  send  Com- 
missioners to  inquire  into  the  facts,  and  troops  to 
punish  the  guilty. 

(4)  Each  Sovereign  shall  be  contented,  he  and 
his  successors,  with  the  Territory  he  actually  pos- 
sesses, or  which  he  is  to  possess  by  the  accompanying 
Treaty.    No  Sovereign,  nor  member  of  a  Sovereign 
Family,  can  be  Sovereign  of  any  State  besides  that 
or  those  which  are  actually  in  the  possession  of  his 
family.    The  annuities  which  the  Sovereigns  owe  to 
the  private  persons  of  another  State  shall  be  paid 
as  heretofore.    No  Sovereign  shall  assume  the  title 
of  Lord  of  any  Country  of  which  he  is  not  in  pos- 
session, and  the  Sovereigns  shall  not  make  an  ex- 
change of  Territory  or  sign  any  Treaty  among  them- 
selves except  by  a  majority  of  the  four-and-twenty 
votes  of  the  Union,  which  shall  remain  guarantee 
for  the  execution  of  reciprocal  promises. 

(5)  No  Sovereign  shall  henceforth  possess  two 
Sovereignties,  either  hereditary  or  elective,  except 
that  the  Electors  of  the  Empire  may  be  elected 

Emperors,  so  long  as  there  shall  be  Emperors.     If 

25 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

by  right  of  succession  there  should  fall  to  a  Sovereign 
a  State  more  considerable  than  that  which  he  pos- 
sesses, he  may  leave  that  which  he  possesses,  and 
settle  himself  on  that  which  is  fallen  to  him. 

(6)  The  Kingdom  of  Spain  shall  not  go  out  of  the 
House  of  Bourbon,  etc. 

•  •••••• 

(7)  The  Deputies    shall    incessantly    labour    to 
codify  all  the  Articles  of  Commerce  in  general,  and 
between  different  nations  in  particular;  but  in  such 
a  manner  that  the  laws  may  be  equal  and  reciprocal 
towards   all   nations,   and   founded   upon   Equity. 
The  Articles  which  shall  have  been  passed  by  a 
majority  of  the  votes  of  the  original  Deputies,  shall 
be  executed  provisionally  according  to  their  Form 
and  Tenour,  till  they  be  amended  and  improved 
by  three-fourths  of  the  votes,  when  a  greater  number 
of  members  shall  have  signed  the  Union. 

The  Union  shall  establish  in  different  towns 
Chambers  of  Commerce,  consisting  of  Deputies 
authorised  to  reconcile,  and  to  judge  strictly  and 
without  Appeal,  the  disputes  that  shall  arise  either 
in  relation  to  Commerce  or  other  matters,  between 
the  subjects  of  different  Sovereigns,  in  value  above 
ten  thousand  pounds;  the  other  suits,  of  less  con- 
sequence, shall  be  decided,  as  usual,  by  the  judges 
of  the  place  where  the  defendant  lives.  Each  Sov- 
ereign shall  lend  his  hand  to  the  execution  of  the 
judgments  of  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  as  if 
they  were  his  own  judgments. 

Each  Sovereign  shall,  at  his  own  charge,  exter- 
26 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

minate  his  inland  robbers  and  banditti,  and  the 
pirates  on  his  coasts,  upon  pain  of  making  repara- 
tion; and  if  he  has  need  of  help,  the  Union  shall 
assist  him. 

(8)  No  Sovereign  shall  take  up  arms,  or  commit 
any  hostility,  but  against  him  who  shall  be  declared 
an  enemy  to  the  European  Society.  But  if  he  has 
any  cause  to  complain  of  any  of  the  Members,  or 
any  demand  to  make  upon  them,  he  shall  order  his 
Deputy  to  present  a  memorial  to  the  Senate  in 
the  City  of  Peace,  and  the  Senate  shall  take  care 
to  reconcile  the  difference  by  its  mediating  Commis- 
sioners; or,  if  they  cannot  be  reconciled,  the  Senate 
shall  judge  them  by  arbitral  judgment,  by  majority 
of  votes  provisionally,  and  by  three-fourths  of  the 
votes  definitely.  This  judgment  shall  not  be  given 
until  each  Senator  shall  have  received  the  instruc- 
tions and  orders  of  his  master  upon  that  point,  and 
until  he  shall  have  communicated  them  to  the  Senate. 

The  Sovereign  who  shall  take  up  arms  before  the 
Union  has  declared  war,  or  who  shall  refuse  to 
execute  a  regulation  of  the  Society,  or  a  judgment 
of  the  Senate,  shall  be  declared  an  enemy  to  the 
Society,  and  it  shall  make  war  upon  him,  until  he 
be  disarmed,  and  until  its  judgments  and  regula- 
tions be  executed,  and  he  shall  even  pay  the  charges 
of  the  war,  and  the  country  that  shall  be  conquered 
from  him  at  the  close  of  hostilities  shall  be  for  ever 
separated  from  his  dominions. 

If,  after  the  Society  is  formed  to  the  number  of 

fourteen  votes,  a  Sovereign  should  refuse  to  enter 

27 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

into  it,  it  shall  declare  him  an  enemy  to  the  repose 
of  Europe,  and  shall  make  war  upon  him  until  he 
enter  into  it,  or  until  he  be  entirely  despoiled. 

(9)  There  shall  be  in  the  Senate  of  EUROPE  four- 
and-twenty  Senators   or  Deputies   of   the   United 
Sovereigns,  neither  more  nor  less,  namely:    FRANCE, 
SPAIN,    ENGLAND,    HOLLAND,    SAVOY,    PORTUGAL, 
BAVARIA  and  Associates,  VENICE,  GENOA  and  Asso- 
ciates, FLORENCE  and  Associates,  SWITZERLAND  and 
Associates,  LORRAIN  and  Associates,  SWEDEN,  DEN- 
MARK,   POLAND,    the    Pope,    MUSCOVY,    AUSTRIA, 
COURLAND  and  Associates,  PRUSSIA,  SAXONY,  PAL- 
ATINE and  Associates,   HANOVER  and  Associates, 
Ecclesiastical  Electors  and  Associates.    Each  Deputy 
shall  have  but  one  vote. 

(10)  The  Members  and  Associates  of  the  Union 
shall  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  the  Society,  and 
to  the  subsidies  for  its  security,  each  in  proportion 
to  his  revenues,  and  to  the  riches  of  his  people, 
and   everyone's   quota   shall   at  first  be  regulated 
provisionally   by   a   majority,   and   afterwards   by 
three-fourths  of  the  votes,  when  the  Commission- 
ers of  the  Union  shall  have  taken,  in  each  State, 
what  instructions  and  information  shall  be  neces- 
sary thereupon;    and  if  any  one  is  found  to  have 
paid  too  much  provisionally,   it  shall   afterwards 
be  made  up  to  him,  both  in  principal  and  interest, 
by  those  who  shall  have  paid  too  little.    The  less 
powerful  Sovereigns  and  Associates  in  forming  one 
vote,  shall  alternately  nominate  their  Deputy  in 

proportion  to  their  quotas. 

28 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

(11)  When  the  Senate  shall  deliberate  upon  any- 
thing pressing  and  imperative  for  the  security  of 
the  Society,  either  to  prevent  or  quell  sedition,  the 
question  may  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  votes 
provisionally,  and,  before  it  is  deliberated  upon, 
they  shall  begin  by  deciding,  by  majority,  whether 
the  matter  is  imperative. 

(12)  None  of  the  eleven  fundamental  Articles 
above-named  shall  be  in  any  point  altered,  without 
the  UNANIMOUS  consent  of  all  the  members;    but 
as  for  the  other  Articles,  the  Society  may  always, 
by  three-fourths  of  the  votes,  add  or  diminish,  for 
the  common  good,  whatever  it  shall  think  fit. 

The  good  Abbe  was  anxious  lest  England 
should  anticipate  France.  "I  have  an  inex- 
pressible dread,"  he  said,  "lest  human  reason 
should  go  faster  at  London  than  at  Paris,  where, 
for  the  present,  demonstrated  truths  have  more 
difficulty  in  embodying  themselves  into  insti- 
tutions." 7  The  Abbe's  friend,  Cardinal  Fleury 
(then  Bishop  of  Frejus),  did  not  share  this  fear. 
When  the  Abbe's  plan  was  submitted  to  him 
he  said,  "You  have  forgotten  the  most  essen- 
tial article — that  of  sending  forth  a  troop  of 
missionaries  to  persuade  the  hearts  of  princes 
and  induce  them  to  accept  your  views."  8 


7  William  Maccall,  "The  AbW  de  Saint-Pierre,"  in  Foreign 
Biographies,  Vol.  I,  p.  125. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  119. 

29 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Leibnitz,  in  1715,  published  a  paper  on  the 
Abbe's  project.  He  notes  that  "there  was  no 
provision  for  the  hearing  of  the  complaints  of 
subjects  against  their  sovereigns."  9  Rousseau, 
writing  in  1756,  raises  the  same  objection: 
"It  is  impossible  to  guarantee  the  prince  against 
the  rebellion  of  his  subjects  without  at  the  same 
time  securing  the  subjects  against  the  tyranny 
of  the  prince;  .  .  .  without  this,  the  Federation 
could  not  possibly  endure.  And  I  ask  whether 
there  is  in  the  whole  world  a  single  Sovereign 
who,  finding  himself  thus  bridled  forever  in  his 
most  cherished  designs,  would  endure  without 
indignation  the  very  thought  of  seeing  himself 
forced  to  be  just  not  only  with  the  foreigner, 
but  even  with  his  own  subjects?" Io  Jeremy 
Bentham,  writing  between  1786  and  1789,  pre- 
pared a  plan  for  a  universal  and  perpetual  peace, 
which  called  for  limited  armaments  and  eman- 
cipation of  distant  colonies,  and  provided  for 
a  "common  court  of  judicature"  which,  ap- 
parently, was  to  be  both  a  court  and  a  congress. 
While  the  decisions  of  this  court  or  congress 
were  not  directly  supported  by  coercive  power, 
Bentham  relied  upon  the  force  of  public  opinion 

9  Introduction  to  William  Ladd's  Essay  on  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
by  James  Brown  Scott,  p.  xxix;  cf.  Darby's  International  Tri- 
bunals, pp.  98  S. 

10  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  A  Lasting  Peace,  translated  by  C. 
E.  Vaughan,  p.  96. 

SO 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

to  bring  about  compliance  with  the  judgments 
of  the  court  and  "contemplated  that  as  a  last 
resort"  troops  might  be  furnished  by  the  several 
States." 

Rousseau  evidently  believed  that  Henry  IV 
might  have  carried  out  his  design:  *'A  war, 
destined  to  be  the  end  of  all  wars,  was  about 
to  usher  in  eternal  peace,  when  a  deed,  the 
horror  of  which  is  only  increased  by  its  mystery, 
came  to  quench  for  ever  the  last  hope  of  the 
world.  The  blow  which  cut  short  the  days  of 
this  good  king  also  plunged  Europe  back  into 
ceaseless  wars,  of  which  she  can  now  never 
hope  to  see  the  end."  12  Edward  Everett  Hale 
also  lamented  that  the  plan  of  Henry  IV  was 
never  tested.  Writing  in  1871,  in  the  shadow 
of  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  he  says:  "It  was 
to  have  made  real,  perhaps  for  centuries,  the 
dying  prayer  of  the  Saviour  of  the  World, 
that  *they  all  may  be  one';  and,  at  the  blow 
of  a  crazed  fanatic  this  hope  vanished  for  well- 
nigh  three  centuries."  13 

Henry  IV  was  an  able  and  inspiring  leader, 
with  a  well-trained  army  and  a  strong  war-chest. 
One  may,  nevertheless,  be  permitted  to  doubt 

11  The  Works  of  Jeremy  Bentham,  edited  by  John  Bowring, 
Part  VIII,  pp.  546-560;    cf .  also  Darby's  International  Tribunal*. 
pp.  146-148. 

12  Rousseau,  op.  cit.,  pp.  110-111. 

"  The  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV,  edited  by  E.  D.  Mead,  p.  87. 
31 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

whether  his  design  could  ever  have  been  carried 
out,  or  whether,  if  it  had  succeeded,  it  would 
not  have  meant  the  retarding  of  the  world. 
It  would  be  hard  to-day  to  justify  the  division 
of  Europe  along  the  lines  then  contemplated, 
especially  as  the  people  of  the  world  were  to 
be  placed  in  a  religious  strait-jacket  upon  the 
expressed  principle  that  "there  is  nothing  in  all 
respects  so  pernicious  as  a  liberty  of  belief." 14 
Moreover,  if  Austria  and  Spain  had  accepted 
the  offered  bribe  of  American  territory,  Vir- 
ginia and  Massachusetts,  which  were  then 
awaiting  the  Cavalier  and  the  Puritan,  would 
have  been  dedicated  to  seventeenth-century 
Spain.  It  would  have  been  a  high  price  to  pay 
even  for  peace. 

It  is  idle  to  speculate  now  as  to  whether  or 
no  Henry  IV  could  have  made  a  permanent 
peace  by  his  plan.  We  do  have,  however,  the 
record  of  another  powerful  prince  who  believed 
in  the  Great  Design,  and  who  tried  to  put  it 
into  effect.  And  this  brings  us  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  attempted  Confederation  of  Europe 
after  1815.15 


14  The  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV,  p.  22. 

15  The  contributions  of  Kant  to  the  solution  of  the  problems 
of  war  and  peace  are  dealt  with  below  in  Chap.  VIII. 

32 


PLANS  FOR  PERPETUAL  PEACE 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

W.  E.  DARBY,  International  Tribunals.  Fourth  edi- 
tion, 1904. 

IMMANUEL  KANT,  Perpetual  Peace,  edited  by  M. 
Campbell  Smith,  Introduction. 

WILLIAM  LADD,  Essay  on  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
edited  by  James  Brown  Scott,  Introduction. 

WALTER  ALISON  PHILLIPS,  The  Confederation  of 
Europe,  Chapter  I,  pp.  3-40. 

JOHN    BASSETT    MOORE,    "The    Peace    Problem," 
Columbia  University  Quarterly,  June,  1916;  re- 
printed in  the  North  American  Review,  July 
1916 

Sra  WILLIAM  COLLINS,  "A  League  of  Nations,"  in 
Publications  of  the  American  Association  for 
International  Conciliation,  January,  1919,  pp. 
36-54. 

L.  OPPENHEIM,  The  League  of  Nations  and  Its  Prob- 
lems, First  Lecture. 

J.  H.  ROSE,  Nationality  in  Modern  History,  Lect- 
ure X. 

RAMSAY  Mum,  Nationalism  and  Internationalism. 

A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  League  of  Nations  in  History. 

OGG  and  BEARD,  National  Governments  and  the  World 
War,  Chapter  XXVIII. 


m 

ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION  OF  EUROPE 

ALEXANDER  I  of  Russia  was  born  in  1777, 
•*""*•  while  the  American  Revolution  was  in  prog- 
ress. During  his  early  manhood  the  French 
Revolution  changed  the  whole  world.  Alex- 
ander, although  a  Russian  prince,  had  ready 
access  to  the  new  French  teachings.  He  was 
tutored  by  La  Harpe,  a  Swiss,  who  introduced 
him  to  the  writings  of  Rousseau.  Rousseau  had 
believed  in  the  possibility  of  a  perpetual  peace. 
In  1756  he  had  written:  "Beyond  doubt,  a 
lasting  peace  is,  under  present  circumstances, 
a  project  ridiculous  enough.  But  give  us  back 
Henry  IV  and  Sully,  and  it  will  become  once 
more  a  reasonable  proposal." l  Alexander  grew 
to  manhood  during  the  period  of  Napoleon's 
domination,  and  was  an  opponent,  an  ally,  and 
again  an  opponent  of  Napoleon.  He  was  only 
thirty-seven  years  of  age  when  Napoleon  was 
finally  defeated. 

1  J.  J.  Rousseau,  A  Lasting  Peace,  translated  by  C.  E.  Vaughan, 
p.  111. 

34 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

There  is  ample  evidence  that  Alexander  knew 
of  the  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV  and  believed 
himself  destined  by  Providence  to  carry  it  out. 
And  in  many  respects  the  time  and  the  cir-1 
cumstances  were  not  unpropitious.  When  Na- 
poleon fell,  Europe  had  borne  a  generation  of 
war.  It  was  tired  of  fighting.  Moreover, 
Alexander  had  an  unspent  army.  As  Moltke 
later  said:  "The  drawback  to  Russia  as  an 
ally  is  that  she  arrives  on  the  field  very  late 
and  is  then  too  strong."  Circumstances  seemed 
to  have  brought  together  the  man,  the  power, 
and  the  tune  to  make  the  vision  of  Henry  a 
reality. 

As  early  as  1804,  when  Alexander  was  but 
twenty-seven  years  of  age,  he  sent  his  famous 
Czartoryski  instructions  to  Pitt.  At  this  time 
Napoleon  was  far  from  beaten,  but  the  Czar 
outlined  his  plan  for  the  reconstitution  of  Eu- 
rope after  Napoleon's  defeat.  It  was  to  be  made 
clear  to  France  that  the  Allies*  efforts  "are 
directed  not  against  her,  but  only  against  her 
Government,  which  is  as  tyrannical  for  France 
as  for  the  rest  of  Europe;  that  our  only  object 
is  to  deliver  from  its  yoke  the  countries  which  it 
oppresses,  and  that  we  now  address  ourselves 
to  the  French  nation  not  to  preach  revolt  and 
disobedience  to  law,  but  to  urge  all  parties  in 
France  to  trust  the  Allied  Powers,  whose  only 

35 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

desire  is  to  emancipate  France  from  the  des- 
potism under  which  she  is  suffering  and  to 
make  her  free  to  choose  any  government  she 
may  herself  prefer."  2 

Ancient  abuses  were  not  to  be  re-established 
in  the  countries  liberated  from  Napoleon's  yoke, 
but  liberty  was  to  be  insured,  based  upon  sound 
foundations.  As  to  the  forms  of  government 
"everywhere  public  institutions  should  be 
founded  on  the  sacred  rights  of  humanity." 
The  Czar  recognized,  as  Cruce"  did,  that  stable 
world  order  and  just  internal  government  were 
interrelated.  He  thus  expressed  his  views  to  Pitt : 

The  object  would  be,  first,  to  attach  nations  to 
their  governments,  by  making  it  only  possible  for 
the  latter  to  act  for  the  benefit  of  their  subjects; 
and,  secondly,  to  fix  the  relations  of  the  various 
states  towards  each  other  on  more  precise  rules, 
which  would  be  so  drawn  up  as  to  make  it  the 
interest  of  each  state  to  respect  them.  .  .  .  When 
peace  is  made,  a  new  treaty  should  be  drawn  up 
as  a  basis  for  the  reciprocal  relations  of  the  European 
states.  Such  a  treaty  might  secure  the  privileges 
of  neutrality,  bind  the  Powers  who  take  part  in  it 
never  to  begin  a  war  until  after  exhausting  every 
means  of  mediation  by  a  third  Power,  and  lay  down 
a  sort  of  new  code  of  international  law  which,  being 

2  The  Memoirs  of  Prince  Adam  Czartoryski  and  His  Corre- 
spondence with  Alexander  I,  edited  by  Adam  Gielgud,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  45-46. 

86 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

sanctioned  by  the  greater  part  of  the  European 
States,  would,  if  violated  by  any  one  of  them,  bind 
the  others  to  turn  against  the  offender  and  make 
good  the  evil  he  has  committed.3 

If  Alexander  had  died  after  the  submission 
of  the  remarkable  Czartoryski  memorandum, 
his  untimely  death  might  well  have  been  pointed 
out  as  another  perverse  act  of  the  blind  fates 
that  have  held  the  world  back  from  perpetual 
peace.  But  Alexander  did  not  die  until  he  had 
had  an  opportunity  to  attempt  to  carry  out 
his  plan.  He  lived  long  enough  to  encounter 
obstacles  to  the  realization  of  his  dream,  some 
of  which  lay  in  his  own  vacillating  character, 
some  in  the  desires  and  characters  of  the  men 
who  were  leading  the  contemporary  European 
States,  and  some  in  fundamental  difficulties 
over  which  neither  he  nor  they  had  any  real 
control.  Alexander  may  have  lacked  the  abil- 
ity and  the  steadfastness  of  Henry  IV;  but 
it  must  be  remembered  that  Henry  IV's  plan 
never  got  beyond  the  parchment  stage.  Alex- 
ander, however,  was  to  realize  the  profound 
truth  of  the  remark  made  by  his  grandmother, 
Catherine  II,  to  the  famous  French  philosopher : 

"M.  Diderot,  you  forget  in  all  your  plans 
of  reform  the  difference  in  our  positions;  you 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  47-48. 
4  87 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

only  work  on  paper,  which  endures  all  things; 
it  opposes  no  obstacle  either  to  your  imagina- 
tion or  to  your  pen.  But  I,  poor  Empress  that 
I  am,  work  on  a  sensitive  and  irritable  medium, 
the  human  skin."  4 

The  story  of  the  treaties  and  conferences  that 
followed  1815  is  very  complex.  Those  inter- 
ested in  a  study  of  the  details  may  read  the 
excellent  book  by  Walter  Alison  Phillips,  en- 
titled The  Confederation  of  Europe.  In  this 
place  a  brief  review  of  some  of  the  more  im- 
portant facts  must  suffice. 

The  Quadruple  Alliance  was  formed  at  Chau- 
mont  in  1814,  between  Russia,  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  and  Austria.  The  object  of  the  alliance 
was  not  only  to  unite  the  governments  "for 
the  vigorous  pursuit  of  a  war  undertaken  with 
the  salutary  object  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
misfortunes  of  Europe,"  but  also  to  assure  "the 
repose  of  Europe  by  the  re-establishment  of  a 
just  equilibrium"  and  to  maintain  "against  all 
attacks  the  order  of  things  that  shall  be  the 
happy  outcome  of  their  efforts."  It  was  specif- 
ically provided  that  the  Allies  should,  without 
clelay,  "concert  as  to  measures  for  preserving 
the  peace  when  established  and  for  mutual  pro- 
tection against  any  attack  by  France."  In  the 


4  J.  H.  Rose,  William  Pitt  and  National  Revival,  p.  300. 
88 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

event  of  a  subsequent  attack  by  France,  amia- 
ble intervention  was  to  be  tried,  and,  failing 
that,  each  of  the  contracting  Powers  was  to 
place  an  "auxiliary  army"  of  sixty  thousand 
men  in  the  field.  The  pay  of  the  men  and  their 
sustenance  was  to  be  defrayed  by  the  "requiring 
Power";  the  question  of  the  supreme  command 
was  settled  by  providing  that  "the  auxili- 
ary army  shall  be  under  the  orders  of  the 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  of  the  requir- 
ing Power;  it  shall  be  commanded  by  its  own 
general,  and  employed  in  all  military  opera- 
tions according  to  the  rules  of  war."  The  agree- 
ment was  to  last  for  twenty  years,  with  a 
provision,  if  the  parties  so  agreed,  for  its  pro- 
longation. While  it  contemplated  an  attack 
from  France  alone,  its  object  was  stated  to  be 
"the  maintenance  of  a  Balance  of  Europe  to 
secure  the  repose  and  independence  of  the 
Powers,  and  to  prevent  the  invasions  which 
for  so  many  years  have  devastated  the  world."  5 
After  the  Treaty  of  Chaumont,  Napoleon 
abdicated  and  was  sent  to  Elba.  Then  followed 
the  first  Treaty  of  Paris  in  1814  and  the  Con- 
gress of  Vienna  in  1814-15.  During  this  con- 


6  For  the  Treaty  of  Chaumont,  1814,  see  Lewis,  Sir  Edward 
and  Edward  Cecil  Hertslet,  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers 
(London,  1841),  Vol.  I,  Part  I,  p.  121;  W.  A.  Phillips,  The  Con- 
federation of  Europe,  pp.  77-81. 

39 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

gress  Napoleon  returned,  was  finally  beaten  at 
Waterloo,  and  the  second  Treaty  of  Paris  was 
signed  on  November  20,  1815.  Simultaneously 
with  the  signing  of  the  second  Treaty  of  Paris, 
the  treaty  made  between  the  four  Powers  at 
Chaumont  was  renewed.  Alexander  had  pro- 
posed meetings  of  the  sovereigns,  or  their  repre- 
sentatives, at  fixed  intervals  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  "the  necessary  effect  to  the  system 
of  reciprocal  guarantees."  Castlereagh,  acting 
on  behalf  of  England,  objected  to  the  idea  of 
"reciprocal  guarantees,"  although  he  was  in 
accord  with  the  principle  of  meetings  of  the 
great  Powers  for  the  examination  of  such 
measures  as  "should  be  judged  most  salutary 
for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  nations  and 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  peace  of  Europe." 
In  the  treaty  actually  made  the  contracting 
Powers  reciprocally  promised  to  maintain  the 
treaty,  and  dealt  with  the  general  peace  of 
Europe  as  follows: 

To  facilitate  and  to  secure  the  execution  of  the 
present  Treaty,  and  to  consolidate  the  connections 
which  at  the  present  moment  so  closely  unite  the 
Four  Sovereigns  for  the  happiness  of  the  world, 
the  High  Contracting  Parties  have  agreed  to  renew 
their  meetings  at  fixed  periods,  either  under  the 
immediate  auspices  of  the  Sovereigns  themselves, 

or  by  their  respective  Ministers,  for  the  purpose 

40 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

of  consulting  upon  their  common  interests,  and  for 
the  consideration  of  the  measures  which  at  each  of 
those  periods  shall  be  considered  the  most  salutary 
for  the  repose  and  prosperity  of  Nations,  and  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  Peace  of  Europe.6 

On  September  26,  1815,  which,  was  before 
the  renewal  of  the  Chaumont  agreement,  Alex- 
ander had  proclaimed  the  Holy  Alliance  in 
his  own  name  and  in  the  names  of  the  King  of 
Prussia  and  of  the  Emperor  of  Austria.  The 
three  monarchs,  "conformably  to  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," which  commands  men  "to  consider  each 
other  as  brethren,"  agreed  that  they  will  "on 
all  occasions  and  in  all  places  lend  each  other 
aid  and  assistance,"  and  that  regarding  them- 
selves as  fathers  of  their  subjects  they  will  "lead 
them,  in  the  same  spirit  of  fraternity  with  which 
they  are  animated,  to  protect  Religion,  Peace, 
and  Justice."  7  Castlereagh  declined  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  Holy  Alliance. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Quadruple  Alliance, 
to  which  Great  Britain  was  a  party,  provided 
for  meetings  of  the  European  Powers  at  fixed 
intervals.  Such  a  meeting,  or  conference,  was 


6  Edward  Hertslet,  The  Map  of  Europe  by  Treaty,  Vol.  I,  p. 
375;  cf.  Phillips,  op,  cit.,  pp.  154-155;  C.  D  Hazen,  Europe  Since 
1815,  pp.  17-18. 

7  The  text  of  the  Holy  Alliance  is  given  in  Phillips,  The  Con- 
federation of  Europe,  pp.  301-302. 

41 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

held  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  the  autumn  of  1818. 
In  addition  to  the  four  parties  to  the  treaty, 
a  representative  of  France  was  present.  An 
arrangement  was  quickly  made  by  which  the 
troops  which  had  been  occupying  France  under 
the  second  Treaty  of  Paris  were  to  be  with- 
drawn. The  question  then  arose  of  the  admis- 
sion of  France  to  the  Quadruple  Alliance. 
Alexander  desired  (1)  the  continuance  of  the 
Quadruple  Alliance  as  a  protection  against 
France,  (2)  a  general  alliance  consisting  of  all 
the  signers  of  the  Treaty  of  Vienna.  The  object 
of  the  general  alliance  would  be  the  guarantee 
of  territorial  possession  and  sovereignty.  His 
memorandum  explains  that  "Such  a  system 
would  guarantee  the  security  of  governments 
by  putting  the  rights  of  nations  under  a  guar- 
antee analogous  to  that  which  protects  in- 
dividuals. The  governments,  for  their  parts, 
being  relieved  from  fear  of  revolutions,  could 
offer  to  their  peoples  constitutions  of  a  similar 
type;  so  that  the  liberties  of  peoples,  wisely 
regulated,  would  arise  without  effort  from  this 
state  of  affairs  once  recognized  and  publicly 
avowed."  8  Castlereagh  had  opposed  any  sug- 
gestion of  reciprocal  guarantees  of  a  general 
peace  in  the  second  Treaty  of  Paris;  he  had 
declined  to  have  any  part  in  the  Holy  Alliance; 

8  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  pp.  172-173. 

42 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

and  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  he  steadfastly  declined 
to  assent  to  the  principle  of  universal  guaran- 
tees. In  his  memorandum  submitted  to  the 
Czar  he  bases  his  objection  upon  the  same 
ground  that  Leibnitz  and  Rousseau  had  ob- 
jected to  the  project  of  the  Abb6  St.  Pierre: 

The  idea  of  an  Alliance  Solidaire  by  which  each 
State  shall  be  bound  to  support  the  state  of  suc- 
cession, government  and  possession  within  all  other 
.States  from  violence  and  attack,  upon  condition  of 
receiving  for  itself  a  similar  guarantee,  must  be 
understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous  estab- 
lishment of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as 
may  secure  and  enforce  upon  all  kings  and  nations 
an  internal  system  of  peace  and  justice.  Till  the 
mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall  be  devised, 
the  consequence  is  inadmissible,  as  nothing  could 
be  more  immoral,  or  more  prejudicial  to  the  char- 
acter of  government  generally,  than  the  idea  that 
their  force  was  collectively  to  be  prostituted  to  the 
support  of  established  power,  without  any  consider- 
ation of  the  extent  to  which  it  was  abused.  Till  a 
system  of  administering  Europe  by  a  general  al- 
liance of  all  its  States  can  be  reduced  to  some  prac- 
tical form,  all  notions  of  a  general  and  unqualified 
guarantee  must  be  abandoned,  and  the  States  must 
be  left  to  rely  for  their  security  upon  the  justice 
and  wisdom  of  their  respective  systems  and  the  aid 
of  other  States  according  to  the  law  of  nations.9 

9  Ibid.,  pp.  182-183. 
43 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

As  Castlereagh  viewed  the  idea  of  guarantees, 
"it  was  opening  up  to  such  a  power  as  Russia, 
...  an  almost  irresistible  claim  to  march 
through  the  territories  of  all  the  Confederate 
States  to  the  most  distant  points  of  Europe  to 
fulfil  her  guarantee."  10 

The  result  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  was  a  com- 
promise. The  Paris  agreement  of  1815  between 
the  four  great  Powers  was  extended  to  include 
France,  the  Quintuple  Alliance  thus  formed 
having  for  its  ostensible  object  the  maintenance 
of  the  treaties  of  Paris  and  Vienna.  Later 
meetings  of  the  five  Powers  were  to  be  held, 
but  only  as  occasion  might  arise.  A  public 
declaration  of  the  results  of  the  congress  was 
made  by  the  five  governments.  From  this 
declaration  the  following  is  quoted: 

The  intimate  union  established  among  the  mon- 
archs,  who  are  joint-parties  to  the  system,  by  their 
own  principles,  no  less  than  by  the  interests  of  their 
people,  offers  to  Europe  the  most  sacred  pledge  of 
its  future  tranquillity. 

The  object  of  the  union  is  as  simple  as  it  is  great 
and  salutary.  It  does  not  tend  to  any  new  political 
combination — to  any  change  in  the  relations  sanc- 
tioned by  existing  treaties;  calm  and  consistent  in 
its  proceedings,  it  has  no  other  object  than  the 

10  Ibid.,  p.  177. 
44 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

maintenance  of  peace,  and  the  guarantee  of  those 
transactions  on  which  the  peace  was  founded  and 
consolidated. 

The  sovereigns,  in  forming  this  august  union, 
have  regarded  as  its  fundamental  basis  their  in- 
variable resolution  never  to  depart,  either  among 
themselves  or  in  their  relations  with  other  states, 
from  the  strictest  observation  of  the  principles  of 
the  right  of  nations:  principles  which,  in  their  ap- 
plication to  a  state  of  permanent  peace,  can  alone 
effectually  guarantee  the  independence  of  each 
government  and  the  stability  of  the  general  as- 
sociation. 

Faithful  to  these  principles,  the  sovereigns  will 
maintain  them  equally  in  those  meetings  at  which 
they  may  be  personally  present,  or  in  those  which 
shall  take  place  among  their  ministers;  whether 
they  be  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  in  common  their 
own  interests,  or  whether  they  shall  relate  to  ques- 
tions in  which  other  Governments  shall  formally 
claim  their  interference.  The  same  spirit  which 
will  direct  their  councils,  and  reign  in  their  diplo- 
matic communications,  will  preside  also  at  these 
meetings;  and  the  repose  of  the  world  will  be  con- 
stantly their  motive  and  their  end.11 

While  Castlereagh  was  strongly  opposed  to 
requiring  the  several  governments  to  interfere 
in  each  other's  internal  affairs,  he  saw  an  ad- 
vantage in  periodic  congresses. 

11  Quoted  in  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  p.  187. 
45 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Writing  to  George  Rose  a  few  months  after 
the  Congress  of  Vienna  in  1815,  he  expressed 
the  value  and  purpose  of  such  congresses  thus* 

The  necessity  for  such  a  system  of  connexion 
may  recur,  but  this  necessity  should  no  longer  be 
problematical  when  it  is  acted  upon.  The  immedi- 
ate object  to  be  kept  in  view  is  to  inspire  the  States 
of  Europe,  as  long  as  we  can,  with  a  sense  of  the 
dangers  which  they  have  surmounted  by  their 
union,  of  the  hazards  they  will  incur  by  a  relax- 
ation of  vigilance,  to  make  them  feel  that  the  exist- 
ing concert  is  their  only  perfect  security  against 
the  revolutionary  embers  more  or  less  existing  in 
every  State  of  Europe;  and  that  their  true  wisdom 
is  to  keep  down  the  petty  contentions  of  ordinary 
times,  and  to  stand  together  in  support  of  the  estab- 
lished principles  of  social  order.12 

And  in  writing  of  these  periodic  congresses 
to  Lord  Liverpool  (then  Prime  Minister)  from 
Aix-la-Chapelle  in  October,  1818,  Castlereagh 
said: 

It  is  satisfactory  to  observe  how  little  embarrass- 
ment and  how  much  solid  good  grow  out  of  these 
reunions,  which  sound  so  terrible  at  a  distance. 
It  really  appears  to  me  to  be  a  new  discovery  in  the 
European  government,  at  once  extinguishing  the 
cobwebs  with  which  diplomacy  obscures  the  horizon, 


12  The  Correspondence,  Despatches,  and  Other  Papers  of  Vis- 
count Castlereagh,  edited  by  C.  W.  Vane,  3d  Series,  Vol.  XI,  p.  105. 

46 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

bringing  the  whole  bearing  of  the  system  into  its 
true  light,  and  giving  to  the  counsels  of  the  great 
Powers  the  efficiency  and  almost  the  simplicity  of 
a  single  State.13 

The  period  from  1818  on  is  marked  by  a 
growing  divergence  in  the  aims  of  Austria  and 
Prussia,  on  the  one  hand,  and  England  and 
France,  on  the  other.  The  difference  was  a 
fundamental  one  between  reaction  and  liberal- 
ism. A  series  of  revolutionary  outbreaks  in 
1819  and  1820  culminating  in  the  murder  of 
the  heir  presumptive  to  the  French  Crown  on 
February  13,  1820,  and  the  mutiny  of  the  Rus- 
sian Guards  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year, 
drove  Alexander  definitely  to  the  reactionary 
side.  He  still  wanted  a  union  of  all  Europe, 
but  thereafter  it  was  to  be  a  union  under  the 
guidance  of  Metternich.  A  conference  was  held 
at  Troppau  in  October,  1820,  which  adjourned 
to  Laibach  in  January  of  1821.  At  these  two 
conferences  representatives  of  England  and 
France  were  present  only  as  observers.  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  Austria,  the  three  reactionary 
Powers,  signed  the  Preliminary  Protocol  of 
Troppau  aimed  at  the  revolting  Italian  States, 
which  embodied  the  following  policy: 


13  Ibid.,  Vol.  XII,  pp.  54-55;  cf.  also  A.  F.  Pollard,  The  League 
of  Nations  in  History,  p.  9. 

47 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

States  which  have  undergone  a  change  of  Govern- 
ment due  to  revolution,  the  results  of  which  threaten 
other  States,  ipso  facto  cease  to  be  members  of  the 
European  Alliance,  and  remain  excluded  from  it 
until  their  situation  gives  guarantees  for  legal  order 
and  stability.  If,  owing  to  such  alterations,  im- 
mediate danger  threatens  other  States,  the  Powers 
bind  themselves,  by  peaceful  means,  or  if  need  be  by 
arms,  to  bring  back  the  guilty  State  into  the  bosom 
of  the  Great  Alliance.14 

Castlereagh  was  not  present  at  the  conference, 
but  following  consistently  the  course  that  he 
had  held  since  1815,  he  filed  a  memorandum  ob- 
jecting to  reciprocal  guarantees: 

The  British  Government  objected  to  the  funda- 
mental principle  on  which  the  protocol  rested, 
namely,  that  of  rendering  the  powers,  either  of 
the  existing  or  of  any  other  alliance,  applicable, 
under  any  circumstances,  to  the  internal  transac- 
tions of  independent  States.  For  this  appeared  to 
lead  immediately  to  the  creation  of  a  species  of 
general  government  in  Europe,  with  a  superintend- 
ing Directory,  destructive  of  all  correct  notions  of 
internal  sovereign  authority;  and  Great  Britain 
could  not  consent  to  charge  herself,  as  a  member  of 
the  Alliance,  with  the  moral  responsibility  of  ad- 
ministering a  general  European  police  of  this 
description.15 

14  PMllips,  op.  tit.,  p.  222.  15  Ibid.,  p.  227. 

48 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

The  revolts  in  Italy,  in  Spain,  and  in  the 
Spanish-American  colonies  continued,  and  the 
breach  between  Great  Britain  and  the  reaction- 
ary Powers  became  wider  and  wider.  In  1822 
the  Congress  of  Verona  was  held,  and  Great 
Britain  finally  broke  away  from  the  Quintuple 
Alliance  and  sought  the  support  of  America, 
one  result  of  which  was  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 
The  Revolution  of  1830  separated  France  from 
the  three  reactionary  Powers,  and  the  Quin- 
tuple Alliance  was  thus  reduced  to  a  Triple 
Alliance  of  Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria,  prac- 
tically identical  with  the  Holy  Alliance,  in 
which  form  it  continued  until  the  revolutions  of 
1848.16 

The  Quadruple  Alliance,  aided  perhaps  by 
the  vivid  memory  of  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  kept 
the  peace  for  a  generation.  It  failed  to  accom- 
plish its  purposes  for  several  reasons,  among 
which  may  be  noted  the  following: 

(1)  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia  wanted  to 
use  their  combined  power  to  repress  liberalism 
wherever  it  appeared. 

(2)  Although  in  the   Treaty  of   Vienna  an 
attempt  was  made  to  recognize  national  aspi- 
rations (with  very  limited  success),  there  was 


16  Cf.  C.  D.  Hazen,  Europe  Since  1815,  Chaps.  IV,  V,  VIII; 
W.  A.  Phillips,  Modern  Europe.  1815-99;  A.  F.  Pollard,  The 
League  of  Nations  in  History,  pp.  10-11. 

49 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

not  as  yet  on  the  part  of  Russia,  Austria,  and 
Prussia  any  real  participatiqn  of  the  people 
in  the  governments. 

(3)  Great  Britain,  with  her  liberal  tenden- 
cies, did  not  want  a  complete  federation  with 
the  three  great  autocratic  Powers. 

(4)  Although  there  was  a  desire  to  avoid 
future  war  on  the  part  of  the  generation  that 
had  seen  twenty  years  of  Napoleonic  Wars, 
there  is  no  real  evidence  that  either  the  sover- 
eigns or  the  people  of  the  various  States  wanted 
to  surrender  any  essential  portion  of  their  in- 
dependence in  order  to  form  a  federative  sys- 
tem.   They  were  willing  to  make  agreements 
as  to  what  they  should  do  if  war  should  come, 
but  they  were  not  willing  or  ready  to  change 
substantially   their   daily  life  to  prevent  the 
coming  of  war. 

A  striking  exception  to  this  last  statement, 
however,  must  be  noted.  Article  V  of  the  first 
Treaty  of  Paris  made  provision  for  the  navigation 
of  the  Rhine  and  looked  forward  to  a  continu- 
ance of  international  management  of  the  Rhine 
and  other  rivers  in  the  following  expression: 

The  future  Congress,  with  a  view  to  facilitate  the 
communications  between  nations,  and  continually 
to  render  them  less  strangers  to  one  another,  shall 
likewise  examine  and  determine  in  what  manner 

the  above  provisions  can  be  extended  to  other  rivers 

50 


ALEXANDER'S  CONFEDERATION 

which,  in  their  navigable  course,  separate  or  trav- 
erse different  States.17 

Most  of  the  high-sounding  expressions  of 
the  vacillating  Alexander  are  now  as  words 
written  upon  the  sand.  Most  of  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  various  congresses  have  come  to 
nothing.  Article  V  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  how- 
ever, which  dealt  with  a  definite,  concrete 
thing,  touching  the  daily  lives  of  people  living 
and  trading  upon  an  international  river,  gave 
form  to  a  new  principle  of  international  co- 
operation by  which  men  thereafter  were  able 
to  live  together  more  harmoniously. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

W.  A.  PHILLIPS,  The  Confederation  of  Europe. 

The  Memoirs  of  Prince  Adam  Czartoryski  and  His 

Correspondence  with   Alexander  7,   edited   by 

Adam  Gielgud,  2  vols. 
The  Correspondence,  Despatches,  and  Other  Papers 

of  Viscount  Castlereagh,  edited  by  C.  W.  Vane. 
A.  F.  POLLARD,  The  League  of  Nations  in  History. 
J.  H.  ROSE,  William  Pitt  and  National  Revival; 

William  Pitt  and  the  Great  War. 
C.  D.  HAZEN,  Europe  Since  1815,  Chap.  I. 
The   Cambridge   Modern  History,  Vol.  IX,  Chaps. 

XIX,  XXI;  Vol.  X,  Chap.  I. 
J.  S.  BASSETT,  The  Lost  Fruits  of  Waterloo. 

17  W.  A.  Phillips,  The  Confederation  of  Europe,  p.  91. 


IV 


THE  JURISTS,  THE  STATESMEN,  AND  THE 
DIPLOMATISTS 

T^REDERICK  W.  HOLLS,  a  representative 
•••  of  the  United  States  at  the  first  Hague 
Conference,  makes  the  following  comment 
upon  the  relation  of  the  Hague  Conference  to 
what  had  gone  before: 

When  the  conference  was  first  called  its  connec- 
tion with  the  intellectual,  scientific,  and  philosophic 
aspirations  for  universal  and  eternal  peace  was  em- 
phasized by  innumerable  articles  and  dissertations 
containing  a  great  display  of  erudition  and  research. 
It  seemed  difficult  even  for  the  daily  papers  to 
discuss  the  rescript  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  with- 
out allusions  to  the  "Great  Plan"  of  Henry  IV 
and  Sully,  the  Essay  of  William  Penn,  the  great 
work  of  the  Abbe  St.  Pierre,  and  the  famous  pam- 
phlet of  Kant  on  "Eternal  Peace."  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  this  view  had  a  certain  justification, 
but  it  wholly  failed  to  grasp  an  essential  character- 
istic of  the  Peace  Conference,  to  wit:  its  diplomatic 

nature.     The   gathering  at  The  Hague   was   the 

52 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

lineal  descendant,  so  to  speak,  not  of  the  innumer- 
able Peace  Congresses  held  in  various  quarters  of 
the  globe,  but  of  the  diplomatic  assemblies  called 
for  the  purpose  of  solving  a  present  problem,  and 
of  furnishing  guarantees,  more  or  less  permanent, 
for  peace  between  the  Powers  represented — begin- 
ning with  the  Conferences  of  Miinster  and  Osna- 
briick  in  1648,  including  those  of  Utrecht  in  1713, 
of  Paris  in  1763,  and,  above  all,  the  Congress  of 
Vienna  in  1815,  and  that  of  Berlin  in  1878.1 

The  diplomatists,  during  the  war,  have  been 
somewhat  discredited.  When  a  great  catastro- 
phe occurs  and  the  handling  of  affairs  which 
led  up  to  the  catastrophe  has  been  under  the 
direction  of  particular  persons,  it  is  in  human 
nature  to  blame  the  catastrophe  upon  them. 
The  critics  can  easily  see  the  failures;  they  can- 
not readily  perceive  the  difficulties  which  men 
were  unable  to  overcome.  The  war  that  the 
diplomatists  were  unable  to  avert  has  been  upon 
us  for  more  than  four  years;  the  wars  that  they 
have  succeeded  in  averting  we  know  very  little 
about.  But  whether  we  praise  them  or  blame 
them,  we  must  have  some  knowledge  of  the 
important  part  they  have  taken  in  the  develop- 
ment of  what  we  know  as  international  law. 

What  do  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  "in- 
ternational law"?  It  has  been  denied  that  there 

1  Frederick  W.  Holls,  The  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague,  p.  351. 
5  63 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

is  such  a  thing,  the  argument  being  that  there 
can  be  no  law  unless  there  be  somewhere  a  sov- 
ereign power  to  enforce  it.  This  is  obviously  a 
question  of  definition.  In  a  very  able  speech 
delivered  in  the  British  House  of  Lords  on 
March  19,  1918,  Lord  Parker  points  out  that 
the  first  step  in  the  development  of  municipal 
law  has  been  the  establishment  of  "customary 
rules  of  conduct,  a  breach  of  which  will  disap- 
point and  give  rise  to  a  grievance  on  the  part 
of  the  person  who  is  injured  by  the  breach.'* 2 
The  English  -  speaking  countries,  with  their 
strong  insistence  upon  the  common  law,  furnish 
an  excellent  illustration  of  the  historical  growth 
of  rules  of  conduct.  Such  rules  do  not  follow, 
but  precede,  the  formation  of  the  tribunals 
which  deal  with  deviations  from  the  rule.  If 
the  deviations  from  the  rule  are  so  numerous 
that  the  rule  cannot  be  said  to  be  generally 
observed,  no  force  would  be  of  avail  in  dealing 
with  it.  Lord  Parker  finds  the  same  tendencies 
at  work  in  the  international  field.  The  cus- 
tomary rule  of  conduct  comes  first;  the  remedy 
for  its  breach  will  be  later  developed.  And  these 
customary  rules  of  conduct  may  be  called  "in- 


*  Parliamentary  Debates,  House  of  Lords,  Vol.  XXIX,  No.  13. 
pp.  500  to  509.  See  also  on  this  point  Munroe  Smith,  "The 
Nature  and  Future  of  International  Law,"  in  the  American 
Political  Science  Review,  February,  1918. 

54 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

ternational  law,"  though  no  remedy  for  their 
breach  other  than  war  has  as  yet  developed. 
Sir  Henry  Sumner  Maine  takes  substantially 
the  same  view:  "What  we  have  to  notice  is 
that  the  founders  of  international  law,  though 
they  did  not  create  a  sanction,  created  a  law- 
abiding  sentiment.  They  diffused  among  sov- 
ereigns, and  the  literate  classes  in  communities, 
a  strong  repugnance  to  the  neglect  or  breach  of 
certain  rules  regulating  the  relations  and  ac- 
tions of  States.  They  did  this  not  by  threaten- 
ing punishments,  but  by  the  alternative  and 
older  method,  long  known  in  Europe  and  Asia, 
of  creating  a  strong  approval  of  a  certain  body 
of  rules."  3 

We  may,  then,  define  international  law  as  those 
rules  of  conduct  which  regulate  the  dealings  of 
civilized  States  and  which  depend  for  their 
sanction  upon  the  general  approval  of  mankind. 
These  rules  are  found  in  the  solemn  conven- 
tions and  declarations  made  by  civilized  States 
in  their  separate  treaties  and  at  international 
conferences,  in  the  works  of  great  text-writers, 
and,  what  is  most  important  of  all,  in  that 
actual  usage  which  furnishes  the  confirmation 
of  written  rules  and  agreements. 

Grotius,  the  Dutch  jurist,  published  in  1625 

3  "The  Whewell  Lectures"  (1887),  International  Law,  Lect- 
ure II. 

55 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

his  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pads.  At  the  first  Hague 
Conference  the  American  Commission,  on  be- 
half of  their  government,  placed  a  silver  wreath 
upon  the  tomb  of  Grotius  at  Delft.  Ambas- 
sador Andrew  D.  White,  the  president  of  the 
American  Commission,  in  the  address  present- 
ing the  wreath,  said  of  the  De  Jure  Belli  ac 
Pads: 

Of  all  the  works  not  claiming  divine  inspiration, 
that  book,  written  by  a  man  proscribed  and  hated 
both  for  his  politics  and  his  religion,  has  proved 
the  greatest  blessing  to  humanity.4 

Grotius  did  not,  like  Emeric  Cruce,  plan  for 
a  perpetual  peace.  Writing  in  the  midst  of 
the  Thirty  Years'  War,  he  tried  to  find  the 
customary  rules  of  conduct  which  should  de- 
termine the  relationships  of  civilized  nations, 
whether  those  nations  were  at  peace  or  at  war. 
As  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  puts  it: 

He  had  to  demonstrate  that  a  common  rule  of 
right  among  States  was  possible;  that  it  was  capable 
of  discovery  and  exposition;  and  that  it  was  not 
confined  to  peaceful  relations,  but  continued  to  be 
binding  in  time  of  war.  With  such  help  as  could 
be  derived  from  earlier  very  incomplete  achieve- 
ments, he  had  to  establish  this  rule  on  foundations 

4  F.  W.  Holls,  The  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague,  pp.  535- 
562. 

56 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

of  moral  and  legal  justice  which  learned  men  would 
deem  sound  and  men  of  the  world  would  not  think 
fantastic.  Moreover,  where  existing  custom  fell 
short  of  being  tolerably  just,  he  had  to  propose 
amendment  without  assuming  to  dictate  to  sovereign 
princes.  This  would  have  been  much  for  a  genera- 
tion of  workers  to  accomplish.  Grotius  achieved 
it  all  himself,  and  so  thoroughly  that  within  half 
a  century  his  treatise  was  received  as  authoritative 
by  the  civilized  world.5 

Other  distinguished  writers  on  international 
law,  of  whom  Pufendorf  and  Vattel  were  the 
most  conspicuous,  followed  Grotius.  Rulers 
and  people  sometimes  followed  their  teachings, 
but  more  often  disregarded  them.  But  inter- 
national law  gradually  came  to  be  recognized. 
To  be  sure,  there  has  been  no  international  court 
able  to  render  what  might  be  called  an  impartial 
decision,  but  national  courts  in  both  England 
and  America  expounded  international  law  and 
actually  determined  rights  in  accordance  with 
the  customary  rules  of  conduct  of  civilized 
States.6 

Another  great  force  led  to  the  development 
of  these  customary  rules  of  conduct.  The  very 
clash  of  arms  made  it  necessary  for  the  separate 

6  Sir  Frederick  Pollock,  "The  Modern  Law  of  Nations  and 
the  Prevention  of  War,"  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  XII, 
pp. 710  ff. 

6  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  XII,  p.  713. 
57 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

States  to  come  together  if  only  for  the  purpose 
of  ending  the  particular  war;  and  these  meet- 
ings or  conferences  involved  a  recognition  of 
some  rights  in  the  adversary  State  which  a 
State  owed  a  duty  to  respect. 

The  treaties  of  Miinster  and  Osnabriick  (con- 
stituting the  Peace  of  Westphalia)  in  1648 
closed  the  bloody  Thirty  Years'  War.  This 
peace  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  era — an 
era  that  was  to  be  profoundly  swayed  by  the 
teachings  of  Grotius.  As  David  Jayne  Hill 
says  of  the  Peace  of  Westphalia: 

First  of  all,  it  ended  forever  both  the  political 
and  spiritual  aspirations  after  universal  empire. 
It  distinctly  recognized  a  society  of  States  based 
upon  the  principle  of  territorial  sovereignty,  and 
settled  the  doctrine,  that  law  goes  with  the  land, 
and  that  each  territorial  State  is  independent  and 
possessed  of  jural  rights  which  all  others  are  bound 
to  respect.  It  was  thus  a  declaration,  not  only  that 
a  society  of  States  exists,  but  that  it  is  based  on 
law,  is  governed  by  law,  and  that  its  members  may 
make  their  appeal  to  law.  What  is  most  important 
of  all  perhaps  is  the  equal  recognition  of  all  forms  of 
government  without  distinction.7 

The  Treaty  of  Utrecht  was  concluded  in  1713. 
It  ended  the  Wars  of  the  Spanish  Succession. 

7  David  Jayne  Hill,  World  Organization  as  Affected  by  the 
Nature  of  the  Modern  State,  Chap.  IV,  p.  93. 

58 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

It  was  frankly  framed  to  secure  the  "Balance  of 
Power,"  a  European  precaution  "that  no  sin- 
gle State  ought  to  be  suffered  to  become  strong 
enough  to  overbear  the  aggregate  strength  of 
the  rest,  or  some  considerable  but  undefinable 
proportion  of  their  aggregate  strength."  8  The 
Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  1748,  ended  the 
great  dynastic  war  which  grew  out  of  the  Aus- 
trian Succession.  This  peace  satisfied  nobody 
and  a  short  time  later  the  Seven  Years'  War 
broke  out,  which  was  closed  by  the  Treaties  of 
Hubertusburg  and  Paris,  in  1763.  The  Treaties 
of  Versailles  and  Paris,  in  1783,  established  the 
independence  of  the  United  States. 

Almost  all  the  treaties  referred  to  above 
made  settlements  of  controversies  in  which  the 
principal  States  of  Europe  were  engaged.  And 
from  1713  on,  the  territory  of  the  New  World 
became  an  important  consideration  in  the  Old 
World  treaties.  The  principle  of  the  "  Balance 
of  Power"  naturally  made  a  quarrel  between 
any  two  great  Powers  a  matter  of  vital  in- 
terest to  all  the  other  Powers.  Since  the  Na- 
poleonic Wars  it  has  been  even  more  true  that 
the  conclusion  of  a  war  is  made  the  occasion 
of  an  international  meeting.  We  have  seen 
that  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  in  1815,  dealt  with 


8  Mountague  Bernard,  Lectures  on  Diplomacy,  p.  97. 
59 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

practically  all  of  Europe.  Similarly,  the  Con- 
gress of  Paris,  in  1856,  which  made  the  settle- 
ment following  the  Crimean  War,  was  a  general 
meeting.  It  will  be  recalled  that  Cavour  sought 
and  secured  a  place  at  this  peace-table  in  order 
to  make  a  presentation  of  the  wrongs  and  the 
aspirations  of  Piedmont  and  all  Italy  to  a 
European  group.  The  Congress  of  Berlin,  in 
1878,  again  brought  together  the  principal 
Powers  of  Europe,  this  time  to  make  new 
boundaries  in  the  Balkans  resulting  from  the 
Russo-Turkish  War. 

It  is  very  easy  to  prove  that  the  European 
Powers  made  very  grave  mistakes  at  these 
numerous  conferences  from  1648  to  1878,  that 
at  times  they  disregarded  geographical  bar- 
riers and  at  times  they  outraged  the  spirit  of 
nationality.  It  is  probably  true,  however,  that 
the  men  participating  in  the  conferences  sin- 
cerely sought  a  peace  that  could  be  maintained. 
However  this  may  be,  the  important  thing  in 
the  development  of  international  law  is  that 
the  States  of  Europe  have  more  and  more  been 
forced  to  consider  themselves  a  family  or  so- 
ciety. Their  peaces  have  not  lasted,  but  they 
have  recognized  the  necessity  of  coming  to- 
gether and,  if  possible,  agreeing  upon  a  whole 
program  rather  than  each  one  treating  his  prob- 
lems as  matters  which  concerned  only  himself. 

60 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

Moreover,  the  conferences  have  very  often  re- 
sulted in  substantial  additions  to  the  rules  of 
conduct  which  govern  civilized  States.  A  strik- 
ing illustration  of  this  was  the  introduction  in 
the  early  part  of  the  last  century  of  the  new 
international  agreements  with  reference  to  navi- 
gable rivers.  Perhaps  a  better  illustration  was 
the  decision  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  at  the 
Congress  of  Vienna.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
also,  that  the  Congress  of  Paris,  in  1856,  laid 
down  some  uniform  maritime  rules  for  appli- 
cation in  time  of  war,  and  that  the  Congress 
of  Berlin,  in  1878,  confirmed  the  principle  of 
religious  freedom  and  equality  in  the  Balkan 
States.  While  rules  of  conduct  adopted  by 
treaty  are  obviously  binding  only  on  the  States 
which  are  parties  to  the  treaty,  nevertheless 
they  serve  also  as  an  example  to  other  States, 
and  have  an  effect  on  the  development  of  in- 
ternational custom  and  opinion. 

There  has  been  still  another  strong  force  in 
the  building  up  of  international  law.  Arbitra- 
tion as  a  method  of  settling  disputes  was  used 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  never  entirely 
abandoned,9  but  its  great  development  has 
come  in  the  last  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 

9  For  arbitration  prior  to  the  nineteenth  century  see  the 
valuable  historical  note  by  John  Bassett  Moore  in  his  History 
and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations,  Vol.  V,  p.  4821. 

61 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

years.  It  is  important  to  note  the  distinction 
between  arbitration  and  mediation,  which  is 
thus  stated  by  John  Bassett  Moore: 

By  arbitration  we  mean  the  determination  of  con- 
troversies by  international  tribunals  judicial  in  their 
constitution  and  powers.  Arbitration  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  mediation.  Mediation  is  an  ad- 
visory, arbitration  a  judicial,  process.  Mediation 
recommends,  arbitration  decides.10 

In  the  treaty  between  England  and  the  United 
States  concluded  on  November  19,  1794,  com- 
monly known  as  the  Jay  treaty,  three  subjects 
were  submitted  to  arbitration,  the  first  a  boun- 
dary question,  the  second  the  claims  on  ac- 
count of  confiscated  debts,  and  the  third  the 
claims  arising  from  neutral  rights  and  duties. 
Since  that  time  there  have  been  numerous  ar- 
bitrations in  which  the  United  States  has  been 
a  party,  most  of  which  have  been  with  Great 
Britain.  But  disputes  have  also  been  settled 
by  arbitration  with  Spain,  France,  Mexico, 
Denmark,  Portugal,  and  several  of  the  South 
American  and  Central  American  countries. 
Professor  Moore  states  that  the  total  number 
of  arbitrations  of  the  United  States  down  to 
1914  was  sixty -eight,  and  that  this  total  was 


10  John  Bassett  Moore,  Principles  of  American  Diplomacy,  pp. 
306-307. 

62 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

equaled  during  the  same  period  only  by  those 
of  Great  Britain,  the  total  of  which  appears  to 
have  been  about  the  same.11 

The  first  Hague  Conference  was  held  in  1899. 
Twenty-six  sovereign  and  independent  States 
were  represented.  While  the  conference  had 
been  called  by  Russia  to  deal  with  the  question 
of  armament,  it  paid  very  little  attention  to 
that  subject.  An  elaborate  convention  for  the 
pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes  was 
adopted.  In  this  convention  the  signatory 
Powers  agreed  (1)  to  use  their  best  efforts  to 
insure  the  pacific  settlement  of  international 
differences,  (2)  to  have  recourse,  so  far  as 
circumstances  allow,  to  the  good  offices  or 
mediation  of  one  or  more  friendly  Powers,  and 
that  the  tender  of  good  offices  and  mediation 
should  not  be  regarded  by  either  of  the  parties 
in  dispute  as  an  unfriendly  act,  (3)  to  provide 
for  the  formation  of  International  Commissions 
of  Inquiry  to  facilitate  the  solution  of  those 
disputes  where  the  facts  are  in  doubt,  and  (4) 
to  constitute  a  system  by  which  international 
arbitration  may  be  facilitated.  It  is  the  work 
done  under  this  last  heading  that  most  interests 
us.  The  States  formally  agreed  to  create  what 


11  For  instances  where  the  United  States  has  declined  to 
arbitrate  see  John  Bassett  Moore's  Four  Phases  of  American 
Development,  pp.  ICC -200. 

63 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

is  called  "a  permanent  court  of  arbitration,"  but 
what  is  in  reality  a  panel  of  arbitrators.  This 
so-called  court  is  made  up  of  four  persons  ap- 
pointed by  each  signatory  Power.  From  the 
list  so  constituted,  arbitrators  are  to  be  drawn 
in  a  manner  provided  by  the  convention,  but 
only  if  and  when  the  States  agree  to  submit 
the  matter  to  the  court.  A  strong  effort  was 
made  on  the  part  of  the  commission  from  the 
United  States  to  have  all  of  the  signatory 
Powers  bind  themselves  to  refer  differences  to 
this  court  of  arbitration,  except  where  ques- 
tions affecting  independence,  vital  interests,  or 
honor  were  at  stake.  These  efforts,  however, 
failed. 

The  results  of  this  first  conference  may  seem 
meager.  With  reference  to  arbitration,  how- 
ever, the  conference  made  a  distinct  advance 
in  international  law.  Ambassador  Andrew  D. 
White  records  in  his  autobiography  that  Mr. 
Piersoon,  the  Prime  Minister  of  the  Netherlands, 
made  this  comment :  "  That  the  arbitration  plan, 
as  it  had  come  from  the  great  committee, 
was  like  a  baby — apparently  helpless,  and  of 
very  little  value,  unable  to  do  much,  and  re- 
quiring careful  nursing;  but  that  it  had  one 
great  merit — it  would  grow."  The  second  con- 
ference proved  that  Mr.  Piersoon  was  correct. 

The  second  Hague  Conference  was  held  in 

64 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

1907,  again  called  by  Russia,  but  this  time 
at  the  instigation  of  President  Roosevelt.  Forty- 
four  independent  States  were  represented.  The 
convention  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  inter- 
national disputes  adopted  at  the  first  confer- 
ence was  amplified.  In  addition,  an  important 
convention  was  adopted  under  which  the  gov- 
ernments agreed  not  to  go  to  war  for  the  collec- 
tions of  debts  until  after  the  question  had  been 
submitted  to  arbitration,  or  arbitration  had 
been  offered  to  the  debtor  State  and  refused. 
Moreover,  a  definite  international  prize  court 
was  agreed  upon,  this  being  a  distinct  advance 
over  the  first  Hague  Conference.  This  court 
was  to  be  composed  of  fifteen  judges,  nine  of 
whom  should  constitute  a  quorum.  A  judge 
absent,  or  prevented  from  sitting,  was  replaced 
by  a  deputy  judge.  Judges  and  deputy  judges 
were  to  be  appointed  for  six  years.  The  eight 
so-called  great  Powers — that  is,  Germany,  the 
United  States  of  America,  Austria-Hungary, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  and  Russia, 
were  at  all  times  to  have  a  member  of  the 
court.  Judges  and  deputy  judges  to  fill  the 
other  seven  places  were  to  be  appointed  in 
rotation  by  the  lesser  Powers  in  accordance 
with  the  schedule  annexed  to  the  Convention. 
By  this  schedule  a  State  like  Spain  would  have 
a  judge  four  years  out  of  six,  and  a  deputy 

65 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

judge  three  years  out  of  six,  while  a  State 
like  Cuba  would  have  a  deputy  judge  one 
year  out  of  six.  If,  however,  one  of  the  lesser 
Powers  should  be  engaged  in  a  war  and  have 
no  judge  sitting  on  the  court,  it  might  ask 
that  the  judge  appointed  by  it  should  take 
part  in  the  settlement  of  all  cases  arising  from 
the  war,  in  which  case  one  of  the  judges  en- 
titled to  sit  in  accordance  with  tlje  "rota" 
should  be  withdrawn  by  lot,  but  such  with- 
drawal of  a  judge  by  lot  was  not  to  displace 
a  judge  appointed  by  another  belligerent. 
Finally,  the  plan  for  a  real  court  of  arbitral 
justice  proposed  by  England  and  America,  al- 
though it  failed  to  become  a  convention,  was 
embodied  in  the  records  of  the  Hague  Con- 
ference as  personally  approved  by  the  delegates 
and  recommended  to  be  put  into  operation  by 
their  several  governments  so  soon  as  the  method 
of  selecting  judges  could  be  agreed  upon. 

The  American  Commission  again  made  an 
effort  to  have  the  States  represented  at  the  con- 
ference bind  themselves  to  submit  differences  to 
arbitration,  with  such  exceptions  as  the  several 
States  might  feel  required  to  make  on  account 
of  questions  affecting  their  independence,  or 
vital  interests,  or  honor.  This  effort  was  again 
unsuccessful.  While  it  was  not  possible  to  get, 
at  either  the  First  or  the  Second  Hague  Con- 

66 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

ference,  a  treaty  of  general  arbitration,  one  of 
the  results  of  the  Conferences  was  a  great  in- 
crease in  the  making  of  such  treaties  between 
individual  States.  Mr.  Joseph  H.  Choate  stated 
in  1912  that  at  that  time  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-four  standing  arbitration  treaties 
had  been  concluded  since  the  First  Hague 
Conference.12 

While  the  American  Commission  took  a  strong 
position  at  both  the  First  and  Second  Hague 
Conferences  with  reference  to  arbitration,  there 
developed  at  the  First  Hague  Conference  a 
question  as  to  the  effect  upon  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  of  the  Convention  for  the  Pacific 
Settlement  of  International  Disputes.  Arti- 
cle 27  of  the  Convention  provided  that  when 
a  serious  dispute  threatened  to  break  out  be- 
tween States  it  was  the  duty  of  the  other  Powers 
to  remind  the  disputants  that  the  permanent 
court  was  open  to  them,  and  such  a  reminder 
from  a  third  party  was  to  be  regarded  by  the 
disputants  only  as  a  friendly  act.  Captain 
Mahan  thought  this  was  an  infringement  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Mr.  Andrew  D.  White 
indicates  in  his  autobiography  that  he  was 

12  Joseph  H.  Choate,  The  Two  Hague  Conferences,  p.  40.  For 
the  attitude  of  the  United  States  with  respect  to  general  arbitra- 
tion treaties  see  John  Bassett  Moore's  Principles  of  American 
Diplomacy,  pp.  322-325;  see  also  John  Bassett  Moore's  History 
and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations,  V»l.  I,  pp.  962-989. 

67 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

much  disturbed  by  this  suggestion.  While  he 
thought  that  the  clause  as  drafted  was  simple 
and  natural,  he  feared  lest  the  United  States 
Senate  might  oppose  the  ratification  by  insist- 
ing that  the  clause  was  a  violation  of  time- 
honored  American  policy  at  home  or  abroad. 
As  a  result  of  Captain  Mahan's  suggestion,  the 
American  Commission  signed  the  convention 
with  the  following  reservation: 

Nothing  contained  in  this  convention  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  require  the  United  States  of 
America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of 
not  intruding  upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangling 
itself  in  the  political  questions  or  policy  or  internal 
administration  of  any  foreign  State;  nor  shall  any- 
thing contained  in  the  said  convention  be  construed 
to  imply  a  relinquishment  by  the  United  States  of 
America  of  its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely 
American  questions. 

This  reservation  was  carried  over  into  the 
Second  Hague  Conference.  America's  consent 
to  the  conventions  adopted  at  both  conferences 
was,  therefore,  subject  to  this  reservation. 

One  other  important  step  was  taken  at  the 
Second  Hague  Conference,  chiefly  as  a  result 
of  the  insistence  of  the  American  Commission. 
The  First  Hague  Conference  was  called  by  the 
Czar  of  Russia;  the  second  Hague  Conference, 

68 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

while  formally  called  by  the  Czar,  was  really 
held  at  the  request  of  President  Roosevelt.  It 
was  considered  by  the  American  delegates  that 
there  should  be  future  periodic  conferences, 
and  that  neither  the  method  of  calling  them 
nor  the  control  of  the  procedure  at  the  meet- 
ings should  depend  upon  a  single  Power.  The 
second  conference,  therefore,  recommended  the 
assembling  of  a  third  conference,  to  be  held 
within  a  period  corresponding  to  that  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  preceding  conference, 
and  an  arrangement  was  made  by  which  the 
program  for  this  third  conference  should  be 
prepared  in  advance  by  a  preparatory  com- 
mittee representing  all  the  governments. 

In  addition  to  the  two  Hague  Conferences 
the  United  States  has  played  an  important  part 
in  the  development  of  International  American 
Conferences,  the  first  of  which  was  held  in 
Washington  in  1889  and  1890,  the  second  in 
the  City  of  Mexico  in  1901,  the  third  in  Rio 
de  Janeiro  in  1906,  and  the  fourth  in  Buenos 
Aires  in  1910.  At  the  first  of  these  conferences 
a  plan  of  arbitration  was  adopted  "as  a  prin- 
ciple of  American  international  law.'*  This 
plan  made  arbitration  (1)  obligatory  in  contro- 
versies concerning  diplomatic  and  consular 
privileges,  boundaries,  territories,  indemnities, 
the  right  of  navigation,  and  the  validity,  con- 

6  69 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

struction  and  enforcement  of  treaties,  and  (2) 
obligatory  in  all  other  cases  with  the  exception  of 
those  which,  in  the  judgment  of  a  State  involved, 
might  imperil  its  "independence."13  The  plan 
failed  to  receive  the  approval  of  the  govern- 
ments whose  representatives  adopted  it.  At 
the  second  conference,  held  in  the  City  of 
Mexico,  the  question  of  arbitration  was  again 
taken  up  and  a  treaty  limited  to  five  years, 
agreeing  to  arbitrate  "claims  for  pecuniary 
loss  or  damage  which  may  be  presented  by 
their  respective  citizens,"  was  signed  on  Jan- 
uary 19,  1902.  The  claims  covered  by  the 
treaty  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  permanent 
court  at  The  Hague  unless  the  parties  created 
a  special  jurisdiction.  At  the  third  conference, 
held  in  Rio  de  Janeiro  in  1906,  the  treaty  con- 
cluded at  the  conference  in  the  City  of  Mexico 
was  renewed  with  certain  amendments,  and  at 
the  fourth  conference,  held  in  Buenos  Aires,  in 
1910,  there  was  another  renewal  with  a  provision 
that  the  treaty  should  continue  indefinitely, 
subject  to  the  right  of  any  ratifying  Power  to 
withdraw  upon  two  years'  notice.  By  July, 
1910,  twelve  governments  had  ratified  the 
treaty  of  1906.14 

13  John  Bassett  Moore,  History  and  Digest  of  International 
Arbitrations,  Vol.  II,  p.  2113. 

14  See  John  Bassett  Moore's  Principles  of  American  Diplo- 
macy, pp. 323,  327-329. 

70 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

We  have  heretofore  noted  the  difference  be- 
tween arbitration  and  mediation.  We  have  also 
seen  that  at  the  First  Hague  Conference  a 
distinction  was  made  between  Commissions  of 
Inquiry  and  the  Court  of  Arbitration,  and  that 
this  distinction  was  maintained  at  the  Second 
Hague  Conference.  Generally  speaking,  dis- 
putes which  arise  out  of  interpretations  of 
treaties  or  recognized  rules  of  international  law, 
and  which  are  susceptible  of  decision  by  the 
applications  of  the  principles  of  law,  are  deemed 
judicial  or  justiciable  questions,  properly  ref- 
erable to  a  court.  On  the  other  hand,  disputes 
which  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  accepted 
rules  of  law  but  are  political  in  their  nature 
are  deemed  non-justiciable  questions,  properly 
referable  to  a  Commission  of  Inquiry  or  a 
mediating  body  whose  function  shall  be,  not 
to  decide,  but  to  find  facts  or  to  conciliate. 
There  has  been  a  strong  tendency  in  recent 
years  to  use  this  distinction  between  justiciable 
and  non-justiciable  questions  and  to  abandon 
the  fatal  exception  which  excludes  from  either 
arbitration  or  mediation  questions  of  "inde- 
pendence," of  "vital  interest,"  or  of  "national 
honor."  As  David  Jayne  Hill  well  says: 

The  fundamental  question  is,  what  is  the  duty  of 

a  State  as  a  juristic  person?     Unless  we  are  to  re- 

71 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

turn  to  barbarism,  we  must  always  come  back  to 
that.  And  what  is  the  "honor"  of  a  juristic  per- 
son? Is  it  not  to  maintain  its  juristic  character? 
How  can  "honor"  be  better  demonstrated  than  by 
strictly  honorable  conduct?  And  what  again  is 
"honor,"  viewed  from  the  side  of  its  strength,  if  it 
is  not  sufficiently  sure  of  itself  to  meet  its  oppo- 
nents at  the  testing-place  of  justice?  Why  then 
should  a  State  shrink,  in  the  name  of  "honor," 
from  giving  guarantees  for  its  rectitude  of  conduct? 
Why  should  it  not  be  willing  to  submit  the  question 
of  what  is  honorable,  in  given  circumstances,  to 
those  who  can  fairly  measure  its  aims  and  motives, 
and  await  a  verdict?  15 

Mr.  Taf  t,  when  President  of  the  United  States, 
earnestly  desired  to  make  a  treaty  with  some 
great  nation  by  which  the  United  States  should 
agree  to  abide  by  the  adjudication  of  a  court  in 
every  issue  which  could  not  be  settled  by  nego- 
tiation, no  matter  what  it  involved,  "whether 
honor,  territory,  or  money."  Secretary  Knox 
supervised  the  drafting  of  treaties  with  both 
France  and  England,  which  were  signed  on 
August  3,  1911.  Under  these  treaties  all  dif- 
ferences involving  a  "claim  of  right"  and 
"justiciable  in  their  nature  by  reason  of  being 
susceptible  of  decision  by  the  application  of 

15  David  Jayne  Hill,  World  Organization  as  Affected  by  the 
Nature  of  the  Modern  State,  p.  66. 

72 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

the  principles  of  law  or  equity"  were  to  be 
submitted  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitra- 
tion established  at  the  Hague  Conference  of 
1907,  or  to  some  other  arbitral  tribunal,  as 
should  be  decided  in  each  case  by  special  agree- 
ment. All  matters  in  dispute  which  did  not 
fall  within  the  class  of  justiciable  questions 
were  to  be  referred  to  a  Joint  High  Commission 
of  Inquiry.  If  all,  or  all  but  one,  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Joint  High  Commission  should  de- 
termine that  the  difference  was  "justiciable," 
then  it  should  be  referred  to  arbitration.  The 
United  States  Senate  failed  to  ratify  the  treaties 
as  negotiated,  but  made  certain  amendments 
thereto  which  were  not  acceptable  to  President 
Taft.  Accordingly,  ratifications  were  never  ex- 
changed. In  1913  and  1914  the  Bryan  peace 
treaties  were  concluded  between  the  United 
States  and  a  number  of  other  States.  These 
treaties  left  unimpaired  the  arbitration  treaties 
already  in  existence  with  the  several  States, 
but  supplemented  them  by  establishing  Inter- 
national Commissions  to  deal  with  all  disputes 
"of  every  nature  whatsoever"  which  diplomacy 
had  failed  to  adjust.  These  treaties  contem- 
plate that  after  the  report  of  the  Commission 
the  parties  are  left  free  to  take  such  action 
as  they  choose.  The  obvious  purpose  is  to 
retard  resort  to  arms  until  the  parties  have 

73 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

had   an   opportunity   to   discuss   their  differ- 
ences.16 

We  hear  to-day  very  much  about  "the  col- 
lapse of  international  law."  If  Germany  had 
been  successful  in  this  war  such  a  pessimistic 
view  might  be  justified.  But  Germany  has 
been  beaten,  overwhelmingly  beaten.  She  has 
violated  treaties  and  this  time  it  has  availed 
her  naught.  Before  we  discard  as  futile  the 
development  of  international  law  through  the 
text-writers,  the  conferences,  the  treaties,  and 
the  arbitrations  of  the  last  three  hundred  years, 
it  is  well  to  remember  that  almost  the  entire 
civilized  world  has  combined  to  resist  with 
arms  the  treaty-breaker.  Indeed,  it  would 
scarcely  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  world 
turned  against  Germany  primarily  because  she 
broke  treaties.  At  the  time  Germany  was  pre- 
paring to  renew  her  great  drive  in  France, 
Ludendorff  was  quoted  as  follows: 

I  must  say  that  in  diplomacy  and  politics  the 
coalition  has  beaten  us.  They  put  the  world  in 
arms  against  us  with  a  skill  which  we  neither  under- 
stand nor  know  how  to  imitate.  It  has  been  brilliant. 


16  See  John  Bassett  Moore,  Principles  of  American  Diplomacy, 
pp.  329-337,  for  some  account  of  these  recent  treaties  and  an 
analysis  of  the  difficulties  of  securing  international  arbitration 
by  the  United  States  now  as  compared  to  the  early  days  of  our 
independence. 

74 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

We  must  therefore  speak  in  the  only  way  they  have 
left  us — by  object  lessons;  all  that  language  can 
do  they  made  it  do.  They  have  left  but  one  lan- 
guage to  us — realities,  realities,  realities.17 

What  Ludendorff  had  failed  to  understand  or 
imitate  was  clearly  understood  by  Bismarck! 
In  a  speech  on  February  6,  1888,  the  Iron 
Chancellor  declared,  "If  we  attack,  the  whole 
weight  of  the  imponderables,  which  weighs  much 
heavier  than  material  weights,  will  be  on  the  side 
of  the  adversaries,  whom  we  have  attacked." 18 
Was  this  not  a  recognition  by  Bismarck  of  in- 
ternational law?  Ludendorff  may  have  under- 
stood what  he  was  pleased  to  call  the  "realities" 
and  what  Bismarck  called  "material  weights"; 
but  the  things  that  Ludendorff  left  out  of  con- 
sideration were  Bismarck's  "imponderables." 
Ludendorff  forgot  those  customary  rules  of  con- 
duct which  the  civilized  States  of  the  world  had 
been  slowly  building  for  three  hundred  years. 
The  result  of  the  great  war,  then,  instead  of 
making  us  despair  of  international  law,  should 
give  us  added  reason  for  believing  in  it.  The 
cynic  may  state  that  England  went  to  war  for 
trade,  and  that  America  joined  the  war  for 
profit.  No  rational  person,  however,  can  now 

17  See  New  York  Times  of  July  4,  1918. 

13  See  Munroe  Smith,  Militarism  and  Statecraft,  pp.  12,  129, 
199-200. 

75 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

accept  such  an  explanation.  We  must  never 
forget  that  the  great  wave  of  sentiment  that 
kept  those  nations  wholeheartedly  in  the  war 
was  due  to  a  profound  belief  that  the  violation 
of  Belgium,  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  the 
murder  of  Captain  Fryatt,  were  not  only  wrongs 
to  the  persons  and  States  directly  involved,  but 
were  international  outrages  which  profoundly 
disturbed  the  whole  basis  of  the  communal  life 
of  civilized  States  and  threatened  the  safety 
of  the  world.  President  Wilson,  in  his  fourteen- 
point  speech,  made  the  evacuation  and  restora- 
tion of  Belgium  of  the  first  importance  because 
of  its  bearing  upon  international  law: 

No  other  single  act  will  serve  as  this  will  serve 
to  restore  confidence  among  the  nations  in  the  laws 
which  they  have  themselves  set  and  determined  for 
the  government  of  their  relations  with  one  another. 
Without  this  healing  act  the  whole  structure  and 
validity  of  international  law  is  forever  impaired. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  A  History  of  European  Diplo- 
macy. 

DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  World  Organization  as  Affected 
by  the  Nature  of  the  Modern  State. 

W.  G.  F.  PHILLIMORE,  Three  Centuries  of  Treaties 

of  Peace. 

76 


JURISTS  AND  DIPLOMATISTS 

JOHN  BASSETT  MOORE,  The  Principles  of  American 
Diplomacy. 

JOHN  BASSETT  MOORE,  History  and  Digest  of  Inter- 
national Arbitrations. 

FREDERICK  W.  HOLLS,  The  Peace  Conference  at  The 
Hague. 

ANDREW  D.  WHITE,  The  First  Hague  Conference, 
reprinted  by  the  World  Peace  Foundation. 

JOSEPH  H.  CHOATE,  The  Two  Hague  Conferences. 

A.  PEARCE  HIGGINS,  The  Hague  Peace  Conference 
and  other  International  Conferences. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT,  Reports  to  The  Hague  Con- 
ferences of  1899  and  1907. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT,  Hague  Peace  Conferences; 
American  Instructions  and  Reports. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT,  The  Status  of  the  International 
Court  of  Justice. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT,  American  Addresses  at  the 
Second  Hague  Conference. 

JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT,  The  Hague  Court  Reports. 

WALTHER  SCHUCKING,  The  International  Union  of 
the  Hague  Conferences. 

HANS  WEHBERG,  The  Problem  of  an  International 
Court  of  Justice. 

THOMAS  WILLING  BALCH,  A  World  Court  in  the 
Light  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court. 

WILLIAM  I.  HULL,  The  Two  Hague  Conferences. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  AGENCIES  WHICH  HAVE 
BEEN  FORCED  UPON  THE  WORLD  BY  THE 
DEMANDS  OP  COMMERCE 

ROUSSEAU,  in  his  essay  entitled  "A  Last- 
ing   Peace    Through    the    Federation    of 
Europe,"  wrote  as  follows: 

The  nations  of  the  other  continents  are  too  scat- 
tered for  mutual  intercourse;  and  they  lack  any 
other  point  of  union  such  as  Europe  has  enjoyed. 
There  are  other,  and  more  special,  causes  for  this  dif- 
ference. Europe  is  more  evenly  populated,  more 
uniformly  fertile;  it  is  easier  to  pass  from  one  part 
of  her  to  another.  The  interests  of  her  princes  are 
united  by  ties  of  blood,  by  commerce,  arts,  and 
colonies.  Communication  is  made  easy  by  countless 
rivers  winding  from  one  country  to  another.  An  in- 
bred love  of  change  impels  her  inhabitants  to  con- 
stant travel,  which  frequently  leads  them  to  foreign 
lands.  The  invention  of  printing  and  the  general 
love  of  letters  have  given  them  a  basis  of  common 
knowledge  and  common  intellectual  pursuits.  Final- 
ly, the  number  and  smallness  of  her  States,  the  crav- 
ings of  luxury,  and  the  large  diversity  of  climates 

78 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

which  Europe  offers  for  their  satisfaction,  make  them 
all  necessary  to  each  other.  All  these  causes  com- 
bine to  make  of  Europe  not,  like  Asia  and  Africa, 
a  purely  imaginary  assemblage  of  peoples  with  noth- 
ing in  common  save  the  name,  but  a  real  community 
with  a  religion  and  a  moral  code,  with  customs  and 
even  laws  of  its  own,  which  none  of  the  component 
nations  can  renounce  without  causing  a  shock  to 
the  whole  frame.1 

Rousseau  thought  he  saw  a  close  community 
of  peoples  in  Europe  in  1756.  How  widely 
separated  those  peoples  were  then  as  compared 
to  August  1,  1914,  when  the  great  war  broke 
out! 

Watt  invented  the  modern  steam-engine  in 
1769.  Fulton's  steamboat  made  its  first  trip 
in  1807.  Stephenson  operated  his  first  steam- 
locomotive  in  1814.  Telegraphy  came  into 
commercial  use  by  1850.  Europe  and  America 
were  connected  by  the  first  Atlantic  cable  in 
1858.  It  was  not  until  1876  that  Bell's  inven- 
tion of  the  telephone  made  it  possible  for  men 
to  talk  together,  although  physically  far  apart. 
One  has  but  to  pause  to  consider  how  great  a 
part  the  results  of  these  inventions  play  in  his 
own  individual  life  to  appreciate  how  the 
world's  habits  of  living  have  been  revolutionized 

1 J.  J.  Rousseau,  A  Lasting  Peace,  translated  by  C.  E. 
Vaughan,  pp.  44-45. 

79 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

by  science  during  the  last  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  And  this  progress  of  science  has 
likewise  revolutionized  the  interchange  of  prod- 
ucts between  the  States  of  the  world  and, 
what  is  perhaps  more  important,  has  enabled 
the  almost  instantaneous  interchange  of  thought 
between  all  parts  of  the  earth  connected  by  the 
telephone  or  telegraph  wire  or  the  submarine 
cable. 

The  fast  steamship,  the  international  cable, 
the  international  telephone  and  telegraph  sys- 
tem, the  international  railway,  have  made  the 
problem  of  interstate  relations  as  they  exist 
to-day  vitally  different  from  the  problems  which 
existed  when  Emeric  Cruc6  gave  the  world  his 
project  for  perpetual  peace  and  Hugo  Grotius 
wrote  his  epoch-making  book  on  international 
law.  New  contacts  have  been  established  be- 
tween widely  separated  States;  differences  in 
habits  that  could  be  ignored  three  hundred 
years  ago  can  no  longer  be  ignored.  The  vol- 
ume and  complexity  of  the  commercial  trans- 
actions which  bind  States  together  compel  con- 
stant adjustments.  Governments  may  try  to 
erect  barriers,  cutting  off  one  State  from  an- 
other, but  no  barrier  is  strong  enough  to  pre- 
vent entirely  the  interchange  of  scientific  or 
religious  thought  or  the  interchange  of  com- 
mercial products. 

80 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

The  result  has  been  that  in  the  last  hundred 
years  there  has  been  a  great  development  of 
international  organization,  due  primarily  to  the 
relationships  which  men  rather  than  govern- 
ments have  been  making  with  each  other.  Some 
of  these  organizations  are  non-governmental, 
and  some  of  them  are  bodies  created  actually  to 
carry  out  agreements  between  States. 

The  non-governmental  agencies  cover  a  great 
variety  of  subjects;  Mr.  Paul  S.  Reinsch  says 
there  are  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  of 
them.2  The  international  co-operation  brought 
about  by  these  organizations  in  the  church,  in 
labor,  in  commerce,  in  law,  and  in  medicine 
has  had,  and  will  have  in  the  future,  a  con- 
stantly growing  influence  (however  frequently 
interrupted  by  war)  in  bringing  distant  parts  of 
the  world  closer  together.  Our  interest  at  this 
time  lies,  however,  not  in  the  non-governmental 
organizations,  but  in  those  organizations  which 
are  composed  of  sovereign  and  independent 
States.  Reinsch  tells  us  that  there  were  in 
existence  in  1911  more  than  forty-five  of  these 
so-called  public  international  unions,  thirty  of 
which  were  provided  with  administrative  bu- 
reaus or  commissions.  These  unions  cover  a 
wide  variety  of  universal  subjects,  such  as  the 


z  Paul  S.  Reinsch,  Public  International  Unions  (1911),  p.  4. 
81 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

international  telegraph,  international  posts,  in- 
ternational railways,  international  rivers,  inter- 
national weights  and  measures  and  other 
scientific  standards,  international  property  in 
patents  and  copyrights,  international  sanita- 
tion, and  the  regulation  of  the  international  side 
of  social  questions,  such  as  the  slave  trade,  the 
liquor  traffic,  and  the  so-called  white-slave  trade. 
The  international  bodies  or  unions  that  have 
been  developed  by  States  to  deal  in  one  way 
or  another  with  all  these  international  ques- 
tions are  of  great  importance  at  the  present 
time  as  illustrating  the  necessity  of  co-operative 
action  along  certain  lines.  These  international 
unions  have  not  been  created  by  theorists  or 
even  by  the  leading  statesmen.  They  have 
been  forced  upon  the  world  by  the  relation- 
ships that  have  arisen  from  time  to  time  in 
the  conduct  of  the  world's  affairs.  They  have 
not  come  in  response  to  any  propaganda.  They 
are  not  even  the  product  of  a  deliberate  plan. 
They  have  come  in  a  haphazard  way.  They 
have  followed  the  contacts  already  created  be- 
tween States  rather  than  being  themselves 
created  in  order  to  make  new  contacts  possible. 
This  growing  intimacy  of  the  world  due  to 
science  and  commerce  was  well  stated  by  Sena- 
tor Cummins  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  Senate 
on  February  26,  1919: 

82 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

It  must  be  clear  to  every  thoughtful  person  that 
there  must  be  in  a  world  like  ours,  where  an  in- 
creasing intimacy  among  nations  has  been  brought 
about  by  the  genius  of  invention,  the  imperative 
demands  of  commerce,  the  drifting  tides  of  popu- 
lation, and,  with  the  constantly  growing  opportu- 
nities of  conflict  and  controversy,  a  developing  in- 
ternationalism that  will  meet  successfully  conditions 
as  they  change  from  year  to  year.3 

We  have  space  here  to  consider  briefly  only 
a  few  types  of  these  international  organizations, 
under  the  headings  of  (a)  international  rivers, 
(b)  international  post,  (c)  international  adjust- 
ment of  customs  and  bounties,  (d)  international 
maritime  regulations. 

(a)  International  Rivers. — When  Napoleon 
made  his  peace  with  the  Germanic  States  in 
1804,  the  treaty  eliminated  extortionate  tolls 
and  harassing  regulations  of  the  Rhine  munici- 
palities and  provided  uniform  regulations  and 
tolls.  Moreover,  an  international  commission 
composed  of  representatives  of  the  French 
Government  and  of  the  German  States  was 
created,  with  allegiance  to  both  governments, 
charged  with  carrying  out  the  new  arrangement. 
This  commission  has  governed  navigation  on 
the  Rhine  for  over  one  hundred  years,  during 


8  Congressional  Record,  Vol.  57,  p.  4528. 
83 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

which  its  chief  functions  have  remained  un- 
altered. The  Treaty  of  Paris,  of  1814,  not  only 
made  provision  for  the  navigation  of  the  Rhine, 
but  laid  down  a  general  rule  that  future  inter- 
national meetings  should  extend  these  pro- 
visions to  other  rivers  which  traversed  two  or 
more  independent  States.  The  Congress  of 
Vienna  provided  for  the  creation  of  a  central 
commission  composed  of  representatives  of 
States  bordering  on  the  Rhine,  and,  in  addition, 
created  "Rhine  Courts"  to  settle  disputes  re- 
lating to  river  navigation.  Another  treaty  was 
made  in  1831  between  France,  the  Netherlands, 
and  the  German  States  bordering  on  the  Rhine 
which  provided  for  administrative  and  judicial 
functions.  After  the  Austro-Prussian  War  the 
Treaty  of  1868  again  set  up  certain  inter- 
national governmental  powers  over  the  Rhine. 
The  general  rule  laid  down  by  the  Treaty  of 
Paris  and  the  Congress  of  Vienna  and  applied 
to  the  Rhine,  has  also  been  applied  to  the 
Neckar,  the  Maine,  the  Moselle,  the  Meuse, 
the  Scheldt,  the  Danube,  and  other  rivers  in 
Europe.4 

The  most  striking  case  of  international  gov- 
ernment of  a  river  is  that  of  the  Danube. 
Since  1856  the  Danube  has  been  subject  to 

*  Francis  Bowes  Sayre,  Experiments  in  International  Adminis- 
tration, pp.  131-141. 

84 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

international  control.  At  the  time  of  the 
Crimean  War  the  Danube,  from  its  source  to 
its  mouth,  was  subject  to  the  administrations 
of  six  independent  States.  Where  navigation 
was  not  dangerous  and  perilous  from  obstruc- 
tions and  pirates,  it  was  harassed  and  made 
expensive  by  the  regulations  and  tolls  imposed 
by  the  different  States.  It  was  useless  for  a 
State  at  the  headwaters  of  the  river  to  dredge 
a  channel  for  deep-draft  vessels  unless  the 
other  States  dredged  the  lower  parts  of  the  river 
to  provide  a  channel  of  equal  depth.  Naviga- 
tion at  the  mouth  of  the  river  was  particularly 
perilous.  Under  the  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1856 
the  European  Commission  of  the  Danube  was 
created.  Although  the  Commission  was  origi- 
nally created  only  to  deal  with  problems  at  the 
mouth  of  the  river,  its  power  and  jurisdiction 
were  enlarged  from  time  to  time,  so  that  by 
1883  the  Commission's  jurisdiction  extended 
from  the  mouth  of  the  river  to  the  head  of 
navigation  for  sea-going  ships.  The  Com- 
mission was  composed  of  one  delegate  from 
each  of  the  Powers  that  signed  the  Treaty  of 
1856.  Of  the  seven  riparian  States,  only  Aus- 
tria and  Turkey  were  signatories  and  repre- 
sented on  the  European  Commission.  In  1914 
the  Commission  was  composed  of  one  member 
from  each  of  the  following  States — Austria- 

7  85 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Hungary,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
Italy,  Rumania,  Russia  and  Turkey. 

When  the  war  broke  out  in  1914  the  Danube 
Commission  had  been  functioning  for  nearly 
sixty  years.  It  removed  obstructions  from  the 
mouth  of  the  river  and  reduced  greatly  the 
number  of  wrecks.  It  dredged  and  straightened 
a  channel  which  greatly  shortened  the  course 
of  the  river.  It  regulated  navigation  and  tolls. 
It  exercised  control  over  the  public  health. 
It  built  and  operated  hospitals,  piers,  and  other 
port  facilities.  It  issued  loans  guaranteed  by 
the  signatory  Powers  to  the  treaty.  The  Dan- 
ube Commission  spent  more  than  $8,000,000 
in  engineering  works.  Under  its  government 
commerce  on  the  Danube  reached  a  volume  that 
makes  it  one  of  the  most  important  inter- 
national rivers  in  the  world.  The  annual  rev- 
enue of  the  Commission,  from  which  it  defrayed 
its  expenses,  amounted  to  more  than  $400,000, 
and  was  derived  from  taxes  levied  on  vessels 
leaving  the  river.5 

The  United  States  has  recognized  the  justice 
of  the  general  principle  announced  at  the 
Congress  of  Vienna,  that  navigable  rivers 
which  traverse  two  States  shall  be  entirely 

6  Leonard  S.  Woolf,  The  Future  of  Constantinople;  E.  B.  Kreh- 
biel,  "The  European  Commission  of  the  Danube,"  in  the  Political 
Science  Quarterly,  March,  1918. 

86 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

free  along  their  whole  course.  The  St.  Law- 
rence River  for  a  part  of  its  course  flows 
through  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  Although 
both  shores  of  this  portion  of  the  river  are 
outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
it  very  early  claimed  that  this  "natural  right 
of  communicating  with  the  ocean,  by  the  only 
outlet  provided  by  nature,"  could  not  be  abro- 
gated. On  June  23, 1823,  John  Quincy  Adams, 
then  Secretary  of  State,  instructed  the  United 
States  Minister  to  England  to  bring  the  sub- 
ject to  the  attention  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment. In  supporting  the  American  view  Mr. 
Adams  invoked  the  principle  declared  by  the 
Congress  of  Vienna.  On  June  19, 1826,  Henry 
Clay,  then  Secretary  of  State,  sent  similar 
instructions  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  then  Minister  to 
England.  Clay  maintained  that  the  inhabi- 
tants on  the  upper  banks  of  a  river  had  a 
natural  right  to  navigate  it  on  the  way  to  the 
sea  through  the  territories  of  another  sovereign. 
Mr.  Clay  also  invoked  the  regulations  estab- 
lished at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  referring  to 
them  "as  the  spontaneous  homage  of  man  to 
the  superior  wisdom  of  the  paramount  Lawgiver 
of  the  Universe,  by  delivering  His  great  works 
from  the  artificial  shackles  and  selfish  con- 
trivances to  which  they  have  been  arbitrarily 
and  unjustly  subjected."  By  Article  VI  of  the 

87 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Treaty  of  June  5,  1854,  and  Article  XXVI  of 
the  Treaty  of  May  8,  1871,  the  right  of  navi- 
gation was  established,  subject  to  laws  and 
regulations  of  Great  Britain  or  the  Dominion 
of  Canada,  not  inconsistent  with  such  right.6 

Through  Secretary  Root  and  Ambassador 
Bryce  there  was  negotiated  in  1909  a  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
which  was  proclaimed  on  May  13,  1910. 
By  this  treaty  the  International  Joint  Com- 
mission of  the  United  States  and  Canada  was 
created.  This  Commission  is  composed  of 
three  commissioners  from  each  country,  and  it 
is  given  control  over  the  future  uses,  obstruc- 
tions or  diversions  of  boundary  waters  on  either 
side  of  the  boundary  line.  The  Commission 
has  power  to  render  a  decision  by  a  majority 
vote,  and  in  case  of  an  even  division  the  com- 
missioners are  under  the  duty  to  make  separate 
reports  to  their  governments. 

The  Commissioners  from  the  United  States 
were  appointed  on  March  9,  1911,  and  from 
Canada  on  November  10,  1911.  The  Com- 
mission organized  early  in  1912  and  adopted 
rules  of  procedure.  Since  that  time  the  Com- 
mission has  acted  upon  numerous  applications 
for  the  approval  of  plans  for  the  diversion  of 

6  John  Bassett  Moore,  Digest  of  International  Law,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
631-635;  Principles  of  American  Diplomacy,  pp.  130-131. 

88 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

waters.  In  the  application  of  the  Michigan 
Northern  Power  Company  and  the  Algoma 
Steel  Corporation,  Ltd.,  for  the  approval  of 
certain  works  on  St.  Mary's  River  the  following 
striking  statement  is  made  by  Mr.  James  A. 
Tawney,  the  Chairman  of  the  Commission: 

This  tribunal  is  also  unique  because  composed  of 
citizens  of  two  independent  sovereignties,  a  fact 
not  generally  known  on  this  side  of  the  boundary. 
Neither  section  of  the  Commission  has  any  authority 
under  the  treaty  to  act  in  either  country  indepen- 
dent of  the  other.  Each  section  acts  in  conjunction 
with  the  other  as  a  joint  international  organization. 
In  cases  like  the  one  now  before  us  each  member 
acts  as  the  representative  of  both  countries,  or  as 
Mr.  Commissioner  Gore,  of  Massachusetts,  in  de- 
ciding a  case  arising  under  the  Jay  treaty  for  the 
settlement  of  questions  growing  out  of  the  War  of 
the  Revolution,  well  said:  "Although  I  am  a  citizen 
of  but  one  nation,  I  am  constituted  a  judge  for  both. 
Each  nation  has  the  same  right  and  no  greater  right 
to  demand  of  me  fidelity  and  diligence  in  the  exami- 
nation, exactness,  and  justice  of  the  decision."  7 

7  See  the  Reports  of  the  International  Joint  Commission  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  especially  the  report  on  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Michigan  Northern  Power  Company  and  the  Algoma 
Steel  Corporation,  Ltd.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  on 
the  Rio  Grande  an  International  Boundary  Commission  has  been 
constituted,  rendered  necessary  by  the  shifting  of  the  bed  of 
the  river  through  the  building  of  piers,  jetties,  and  other  artificial 
improvements.  See  John  Bassett  Moore,  History  and  Digest  of 
International  Arbitrations,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1358-1359. 

89 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

(b)  International  Post. — The  great  develop- 
ment of  commerce  between  nations  and  the 
increase  in  social  relationships  have  made  the 
problem  of  international  posts  a  vital  one  which 
touches  the  lives  of  the  people  of  every  country. 
In  1875  the  General  Postal  Union  was  formed 
by  an  international  treaty  to  which  twenty -two 
States  were  parties.  This  union  became  in  1878 
the  Universal  Postal  Union.  All  except  a  few 
small  countries  are  now  members  of  it.  The 
constitution  consists  of  a  convention  and  a 
reglement,  the  former  establishing  the  govern- 
ment of  the  union  and  its  more  important  func- 
tions, the  latter  regulating  the  details  of  ad- 
ministration. The  organs  of  the  union  are: 

(1)  A  congress  of  plenipotentiaries  which  has 
power  to  alter  or  amend  both  the  convention 
and  the  reglement  by  a  majority  vote  of  the 
delegates,  the  action  of  the  delegates,  however, 
being  subject  to  ratification  by  their  respective 
governments. 

(2)  A   conference   of   delegates  designed  to 
deal  with  questions  of  minor  importance.     As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  conference  has  had  no 
meeting  since  1876,  as  it  has  been  easier  in 
practice  to  bring  matters  before  the  congress. 

(3)  An  international  bureau  which  is  an  ad- 
ministrative organization  and  is  located  at  Berne. 

The    Universal     Postal     Union,     operating 

90 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

through  the  above  organs,  deals  with  all  mat- 
ters relating  to  international  postal  communi- 
cation, including  the  fixing  of  postal  rates  and  the 
regulation  of  weight  and  size  of  postal  matter. 
Before  the  Postal  Union  was  formed  the  inter- 
change of  postal  matter  was  regulated  by  treaties 
which  one  State  made  with  another.    France,  for 
instance,  handled  a  large  mass  of  foreign  postal 
matter  in  transit  and  derived  a  large  revenue 
therefrom.     Under  this  system  the  advantages 
of  cheap  and  quick  international  communication 
received  but  little  recognition.     Postal  rates 
between  two  distant  parts  of  the  world  varied 
according  to  the  route  by  which  the  matter  was 
sent,  and  postal  matter  missing  a  mail  by  the 
route  specified  for  it  was  held  for  the  next  mail 
by  that  route  and  was  not  forwarded  by  any 
other  route  that  might  give  quicker  delivery. 
Reinsch  states  that  a  letter  from  the  United 
States  to  Australia  would  pay  postage  of  5 
cents,  33  cents,  45  cents,  60  cents,  or  $1.02 
per  half -ounce,  according  to  the  route  by  which 
it  was  to  be  sent.     By  co-operation  and  agree- 
ment all  but  a  few  small  countries  have  com- 
bined and  formed  a  world-embracing  union  for 
the  interchange   of   postal   matter.     Uniform 
postal  rates  for  foreign  matter  are  fixed  and 
transit  of  postal  matter  throughout  the  States 
composing  the  Union  is  free.     The  permanent 

91 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

bureau  at  Berne  serves  as  a  clearing-house  for 
information  concerning  international  postal 
matters  and  for  the  settlement  of  accounts. 
Upon  request  of  the  parties  concerned,  it  also 
renders  opinions  upon  questions  in  dispute. 
Between  meetings  of  the  congresses  any  mem- 
ber of  the  Union  may  make  proposals  through 
the  bureau  concerning  the  working  of  the 
Union  or  the  amendment  of  the  constitution 
and  reglement.  Such  proposals  are  then  sub- 
mitted by  the  bureau  to  the  other  members  of 
the  Union,  who  vote  upon  them. 

The  ordinary  expenses  of  the  permanent 
Bureau  at  Berne  must  not  exceed  the  sum  of 
125,000  francs  annually.  This  bureau  is  under 
the  supervision  of  the  Swiss  Postal  Adminis- 
tration. The  expenses,  however,  are  appor- 
tioned among  the  members  of  the  Union  (Pro- 
tectorates and  Colonies  in  certain  cases  being 
treated  as  separate  members),  who  are  divided 
into  seven  classes,  each  contributing  in  the  pro- 
portion of  a  certain  number  of  units,  to  wit: 

1st  class 25  units 

2d  class 20  units 

3d  class 15  units 

4th  class 10  units 

6th  class 5  units 

6th  class 3  units 

7th  class 1  unit 

92 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

Under  this  arrangement  a  member  listed  in 
the  1st  class  would  pay  twenty-five  times  as 
much  as  a  member  listed  in  the  7th  class. 
Germany,  Austria,  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, France,  Great  Britain,  Hungary,  British 
India,  the  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Canada, 
the  British  Colonies  and  Protectorates  of  South 
Africa,  the  other  British  Colonies  and  Protec- 
torates, Italy,  Japan,  Russia,  and  Turkey  are 
in  the  1st  class.  The  insular  possessions  of  the 
United  States  of  America  are  treated  as  a  whole 
and  appear  as  a  separate  member  in  the  3d 
class.8 

(c)  International  Adjustment  of  Customs  and 
Bounties.  —  The  problem  of  customs  and  boun- 
ties has  long  been  a  perplexing  problem  in  in- 
terstate relations.  As  trade  relationships  have 
become  more  and  more  complex  it  has  become 
necessary  to  consider  some  of  these  problems 
internationally. 

The  permanent  sugar  commission,  formed  in 
1902,  to  which  fourteen  States  finally  became 
parties,  is  a  striking  illustration  of  international 
co-operation  forced  by  the  commercial  disorder 
which  resulted  from  lack  of  co-operation.  Sev- 

8  R.  L.  Bridgman,  The  First  Book  of  World  Law,  pp.  17-71; 
Paul  S.  Reinsch,  Public  International  Unions,  pp.  21-28;  L.  S. 
Woolf,  International  Government,  pp.  118-129;  Francis  Bowes 
Sayre,  Experiments  in  International  Administration,  pp.  21-25. 

93 


THE  SOCIETY  OP  FREE  STATES 

era!  of  the  European  States  were  giving  large 
bounties  on  exports  of  home-grown  sugar.  The 
result  was  that  the  price  of  sugar  to  consumers 
in  countries  paying  bounties  was  raised,  while 
the  price  in  the  great  non-producing  markets 
was  lowered  to  a  point  where  producers  of 
sugar  under  natural  conditions  in  tropical  and 
semi-tropical  countries  were  injured.  The  Euro- 
pean States  in  question  therefore  agreed  to 
abolish  their  bounties,  and  to  impose  counter- 
vailing duties  upon  imports  from  those  countries 
which  still  gave  bounties.  An  international  ad- 
ministrative bureau  to  carry  out  the  convention 
was  created. 

Besides  abolishing  the  direct  bounties  paid 
for  the  exportation  or  production  of  sugar,  the 
contracting  States  agreed  to  abolish  indirect 
bonuses  and  advantages  as  well.  Each  State 
also  agreed  to  put  all  sugar-factories  and  sugar- 
refineries  in  bond  under  close  and  continuous 
supervision.  The  Permanent  Commission  de- 
termined whether  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
were  being  executed  by  the  contracting  States 
and  rendered  opinions  on  contested  questions. 
It  also  acted  as  a  clearing-house  for  information 
concerning  statistics  of  and  legislation  on  sugar 
in  all  sugar-producing  countries  as  well  as  in 
the  contracting  States.  It  also  determined  the 
facts  upon  requests  of  other  States  for  member" 

94 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

ship  in  the  International  Sugar  Convention. 
At  the  time  the  treaty  was  signed,  in  1902,  nine 
States  were  members  of  the  Brussels  Convention, 
which  later  numbered  fourteen  members,  in- 
cluding Great  Britain,  Austria-Hungary,  Ger- 
many, France,  and  Russia.9 

(d)  Maritime  Regulations.  —  Marine  regula- 
tions are  necessarily  matters  with  a  strong  in- 
ternational aspect.  The  International  Marine 
Conference  of  1899  set  up  an  elaborate  body 
of  regulations  for  preventing  collisions  at  sea. 
These  regulations  establish  rules  concerning 
lights,  signals  for  fogs,  the  speed  of  ships  dur- 
ing fogs,  steering  and  sailing  rules,  distress  sig- 
nals, and  the  designating  and  markings  of  ves- 
sels, and  provide  for  saving  life  and  property 
from  shipwreck,  qualifications  for  officers  and 
seamen,  the  reporting,  marking,  and  removing 
of  wrecks,  and  a  uniform  system  of  buoys  and 
beacons.  The  establishment  of  a  permanent 
international  maritime  commission  was  pro- 
posed, but  was  not  "for  the  present"  considered 
expedient.10 

The  foregoing  international  agencies  are 
types  of  international  co-operation  created 

9  Francis  Bowes  Sayre,  op.  cit.,  pp.  117-124;    L.  S.  Woolf, 
International  Government,  p.  156;    Paul  S.  Reinsch,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
49-51. 

10  R.  L.  Bridgman,  op.  cit.,  pp.  147-164. 

95 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

under  the  compulsion  of  necessity.  Men, 
moved  by  curiosity,  or  by  commerce,  or  by 
religion,  keep  spreading  themselves  over  the 
world.  New  points  of  contact  between  the 
States  are  constantly  being  made.  The  accom- 
plishments of  modern  science  have  multiplied 
these  points  of  contact  a  thousandfold.  Wheth- 
er a  single  State  wills  it  so  or  not,  it  belongs  to 
a  society  of  States.  Its  people  are  compelled 
to  live  upon  a  globe  limited  in  area,  which  is 
also  occupied  by  people  of  other  States.  The 
result  is  that  accredited  representatives  of  sov- 
ereign States  are  required  to  meet  from  time  to 
time  and  reach  an  agreement  in  order  to  meet 
the  daily  needs  of  then*  people.  These  agree- 
ments, when  ratified  by  the  respective  govern- 
ments, become  binding  upon  the  governments. 
It  is  not  because  of  the  real  or  fancied  interfer- 
ence with  sovereignty  or  independence  that 
these  cases  of  international  action  interest  us. 
It  is  rather  because  the  action  taken  under  the 
treaties  becomes  real  international  action,  real 
drill  in  co-operative  effort. 

Some  international  unions  have  been  marked 
successes,  and  some  have  been  failures.  One 
condition  of  success  would  seem  to  be  that  the 
international  interest  which  caused  the  forma- 
tion of  the  union  must  be  so  overwhelming 
that  the  States  which  join  the  union  have  a 

96 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  COMMERCE 

strong  interest  in  its  success.  Moreover,  in 
these  unions,  as  in  everything  else  in  life,  the 
personal  element  plays  a  great  part.  If  States 
feel  a  necessity  for  engaging  in  co-operative 
action,  it  is  essential  that  the  men  they  send 
to  represent  them  in  such  action  should  be  men 
possessed  of  co-operative  spirit.  It  is  as  true 
now  in  international  matters  as  when  Grotius 
wrote,  three  hundred  years  ago,  that  "care 
must  be  had  to  avoid,  not  only  perfidy,  but 
anything  which  may  exasperate  the  mind  of 
the  other  party."11 

International  relationships  of  the  kind  de- 
scribed in  this  article  are  not  decreasing,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  are  constantly  increasing.  The 
growth  of  international  commerce  and  the 
further  development  of  science  will  bring  the 
people  of  the  world  much  closer  together  in 
the  next  fifty  years  than  they  have  been  in  the 
last  fifty.  The  most  earnest  believer  in  "no 
entangling  alliances"  would  hardly  urge  that 
treaties  of  the  type  mentioned  above  be  can- 
celed and  that  no  more  be  made.  To  adopt 
such  a  course  would  be  to  cut  off  living  relation- 
ships with  other  States  upon  which  the  liveli- 
hood and  comfort  and  happiness  of  millions  of 
people  depend.  It  is  idle  to  think  that  any 


»  Hugo  Grotius,  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pads,  Book  III,  Chap.  XXV. 
97 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

force  in  the  world  is  strong  enough  to  put  the 
various  peoples  of  the  world  permanently  back 
into  separate  water-tight  compartments.  One 
might  as  well  attempt  to  undo  the  scientific  de- 
velopments which  have  multiplied  the  relation- 
ships of  mankind.  The  question  is  no  longer 
open  as  to  whether  we  shall  have  relationships 
with  other  States.  Each  State  necessarily  be- 
longs to  a  society  of  States.  The  only  question 
is,  what  kind  of  rules  shall  it  make  to  deter- 
mine its  relationships  to  the  other  members  of 
that  Society? 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PAUL  S.  REINSCH,  Public  International  Unions,  Their 
Work  and  Organization. 

RAYMOND  L.  BRIDGMAN,  The  First  Book  of  World 
Law. 

LEONARD  S.  WOOLF,  International  Government;  The 
Future  of  Constantinople. 

FRANCIS  BOWES  SATRE,  Experiments  in  International 
Administration. 

E.  B.  KREHBIEL,  "The  European  Commission  of 
the  Danube;  An  Experiment  in  International 
Administration,"  in  the  Political  Science  Quar- 
terly, March,  1918;  Nationalism,  War  and 
Society,  Part  III. 

THE  EARL  OF  CROMER,  Modern  Egypt,  Chapter  XLI, 

on  the  "International  Administrations." 
98 


VI 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  WHICH 
WERE  FORCED  UPON  THE  ALLIED  WORLD 
BY  THE  WAR  WITH  GERMANY. 

IN  the  earlier  years  of  the  great  war  Great 
Britain,  France  and  Russia  were  compelled 
to  carry  on  what  practically  amounted  to  three 
separate  wars  against  Germany.  The  three 
great  States  had  different  types  of  munitions, 
separate  supply  systems,  separate  military  com- 
mand. When  Italy  came  into  the  war  she 
added  a  new  type  of  munitions,  another  inde- 
pendent supply  system,  and  another  indepen- 
dent command.  It  has  always  been  difficult  for 
an  alliance  properly  to  co-ordinate  and  exercise 
the  joint  strength  of  its  members.  When  the 
inner  history  of  this  war  has  been  written  it 
will  be  disclosed  that  it  has  been  no  exception 
to  wars  carried  on  by  alliances.1 

In  modern  warfare  a  supply  system  stretches 

1  See  the  Paris  speech  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  November  12, 1917, 
reprinted  in  A  League  of  Nations,  Bimonthly  Pamphlets  of  the 
World  Peace  Foundation,  Vol.  I,  No.  7. 

99 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

literally  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  Allied 
Governments  were  necessarily  in  active  com- 
petition for  raw  materials,  without  which  they 
could  not  successfully  wage  the  war.  Cruel 
experience  taught  the  Allies  the  lesson  of  co- 
operation; German  strength  compelled  them 
to  put  the  teaching  into  practice.  At  first,  co- 
operation was  necessary  to  reduce  the  great 
financial  burden  imposed  upon  the  Allied  Gov- 
ernments by  the  rapid  advance  in  prices  result- 
ing from  competitive  buying.  When  the  German 
submarine  campaign  reached  its  climax  in  the 
spring  of  1917  the  scarcity  of  shipping  neces- 
sitated a  much  closer  co-operation.  It  was  no 
longer  a  question  of  what  things  cost,  it  had 
become  a  question  of  whether  the  necessary 
materials  and  food  could  be  obtained  at  any 
price  unless  the  several  governments  arranged 
to  bring  those  commodities  from  the  nearest 
source  of  supply. 

Very  early  in  the  war  the  Commission  Inter- 
nationale de  Ravitaillement,  composed  of  rep- 
resentatives of  Great  Britain  and  several 
countries  buying  war  supplies  in  England,  was 
formed.  This  body  rendered  a  useful  service 
in-  bringing  the  purchases  of  the  various  Allied 
Governments  in  England  under  a  centralized 
supervision.  The  body  was  not,  however,  an 

international  body  in  the  same  sense  as  were  the 

100 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

Program  Committees  created  later  in  the  war, 
inasmuch  as  the  position  of  Great  Britain  on 
this  Commission  was  quite  different  from  that 
of  the  other  members.  Great  Britain  was  the 
party  that  furnished  the  supplies  and  the  ships 
which  enabled  them  to  be  transported.  The 
Commission  was,  therefore,  a  body  representing 
Great  Britain  and  the  several  applicants  for 
help  from  her.  It  permitted  the  apportioning 
by  Great  Britain  of  her  surplus  resources  as 
equitably  as  possible  among  the  various  appli- 
cants. The  increasing  pressure  of  the  war 
made  it  necessary  to  get  supplies  from  all  over 
the  world,  and  a  more  comprehensive  plan  of 
co-operation  was  rendered  necessary.  More- 
over, the  principle  on  which  the  Commission 
Internationale  de  Ravitaillement  operated  was 
hardly  satisfactory  for  an  international  war 
body.  It  did  not  call  for  submission  of  Great 
Britain's  program  to  her  Allies,  but  only  of  the 
programs  of  her  Allies  to  Great  Britain.  How- 
ever much  economic  aid  Great  Britain  rendered 
her  Allies,  there  was  always  the  possibility  that 
the  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  various 
applicants  of  just  what  the  other  applicants  were 
getting,  as  well  as  how  much  England  was  re- 
taining for  her  own  use,  would  cause  suspicions 
and  jealousies  and  impede  the  joint  war  effort. 

And,  what  was  more  important,  the  machinery 

8  101 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

of  the  Commission  Internationale  de  Ravitaille- 
ment  was  not  adequate  for  testing  the  relative 
need  of  the  various  governments  desiring  mate- 
rials and  transport  from  all  quarters  of  the  globe. 

In  1916  and  1917  a  body  known  as  the  Wheat 
Executive,  upon  which  England,  France,  and 
Italy  were  represented,  was  formed.  This 
body  met  in  London;  it  made  programs  of  the 
cereal  needs  of  the  three  countries  involved, 
and  the  source  of  supply  from  which  the  needs 
of  each  country  should  be  met.  The  principle 
of  the  Wheat  Executive  was  that  each  of  the 
partners  was  to  submit  to  the  others  cereal 
programs  for  criticism,  the  belief  being,  and  the 
result  proving,  that  if  each  country  knew  the 
sacrifices  that  the  other  countries  were  making, 
friction  in  waging  the  common  war  could  be 
avoided.  The  programs  having  been  made, 
the  Wheat  Executive  also  undertook  to  carry 
them  out.  To  this  end  it  created  a  common 
buying  organization.  Great  Britain  from  the 
beginning  had  made  allocations  of  tonnage  to 
France  and  Italy.  After  the  Wheat  Executive 
was  formed  she  continued  to  furnish  the  ton- 
nage necessary  to  transport  the  agreed  cereal 
requirements. 

America  came  into  the  war  in  the  early  part 
of  1917  and  assumed  the  position,  which  Great 

Britain  had  theretofore  held,  of  the  principal 

102 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

reservoir  of  Allied  credit.  America  from  the 
outset  extended  very  liberal  credits  to  all  the 
nations  allied  against  Germany,  and  this,  of 
course,  involved  her  at  once  in  the  same  diffi- 
culties which  had  confronted  Great  Britain  at 
the  beginning  of  the  war.  The  problem  had 
to  be  met  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  needs 
of  the  several  governments  in  the  American 
markets.  When  the  American  Mission  went 
to  the  Inter-Allied  Conference  in  Paris  in  the 
latter  part  of  1917,  a  general  conference  on  the 
question  of  international  co-operation  was  held. 
One  result  was  that  an  Inter-Allied  Council  on 
War  Purchases  and  Finance  was  established. 
This  Council  sat  in  London  and  Paris.  It  was 
made  up  of  representatives  from  America,  Great 
Britain,  France,  and  Italy.  The  Council  was 
created  to  deal  with  war  purchases  made  in 
America,  and  especially  with  the  credit  to  be 
extended  by  the  American  Government  to  cover 
payment  therefor.  It  was,  therefore,  the  same 
type  of  international  council  as  the  Commission 
Internationale  de  Ravitaillement.  The  position  of 
the  United  States  in  this  Council  was  analogous 
to  the  position  of  Great  Britain  on  the  Com- 
mission Internationale  de  Ravitaillement.  With 
the  increasing  pressure  of  the  war  this  Council 
on  Finance  and  War  Purchases  became  more 
and  more  an  exclusively  Finance  Council,  and 

103 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

before  the  armistice  was  signed  it  was  required 
to  extend  its  scope  to  general  questions  of  in- 
ternational exchange  and  the  adjustment  of 
international  credits. 

The  Inter- Allied  Conference  of  December, 
1917,  however,  outlined  a  much  more  compre- 
hensive plan  for  dealing  with  the  whole  prob- 
lem of  imports  from  one  country  to  another.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  at  this  time  it  had  be- 
come apparent  that  the  vital  problem  of  the  war 
was  the  marshaling  of  the  resources  of  the 
States  opposed  to  the  Central  Powers  in  such 
a  way  that  they  could  be  brought  to  the 
point  of  contact  with  the  enemy  before  it  was 
too  late.  There  was  known  to  be  a  limited 
supply  of  materials  and  of  maritime  trans- 
port. The  aggressive  submarine  campaign  of 
the  Germans  was  making  the  shipping  situa- 
tion more  critical  each  month.  The  Paris  Con- 
ference of  December,  1917,  realizing  that  waste 
by  one  State  of  any  of  its  merchant  tonnage 
was  a  weakening  of  the  united  war  effort,  and 
therefore  an  injury  to  the  whole  AJlied  cause, 
struck  out  on  a  bold,  new  plan.  The  following 
is  an  extract  from  the  official  report  of  the 
conference: 

The  special  Committee  for  Maritime  Transport 
and  General  Imports  of  the  Inter-Allied  Conference 

of  Paris  has  decided  by  unanimous  resolution  of  the 

104 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

delegates  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Great 
Britain,  Italy  and  France,  that  it  is  necessary  to 
arrange  a  form  of  co-operation  between  the  Allies 
which  will  secure  the  following  objects: 

(a)  To  make  the  most  economical  use  of  tonnage 
under  the  control  of  all  the  Allies; 

(b)  To  allot  that  tonnage  as  between  the  different 
needs  of  the  Allies  in  such  a  way  as  to  add  most  to 
the  general  war  effort;  and 

(c)  To  adjust  the  programs  of  requirements  of 
the  different  Allies  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  them 
within  the  scope  of  the  possible  carrying  power  of 
the  tonnage  available. 

To  secure  these  objects  an  International  Board, 
with  complete  executive  power  over  a  common  pool 
of  tonnage,  had  been  proposed,  but  has  been  rejected 
for  the  following  reasons: 

It  would  be  difficult  for  any  country,  and  partic- 
ularly for  America  or  Great  Britain,  to  delegate 
absolute  power  to  dispose  of  its  tonnage  (which  is 
the  basis  of  all  its  civilian  and  military  requirements) 
to  a  representative  on  an  International  Board  on 
which  he  might  be  outvoted.  Such  a  Board,  more- 
over, would  not  lead  to  administrative  efficiency, 
partly  because  the  complete  control  of  all  tonnage 
can  scarcely  be  well  concentrated  in  one  place  and 
partly  because  representatives  upon  it  would  tend 
to  be  at  once  out  of  touch  with  the  actual  adminis- 
trative executive  machinery  and,  at  the  same  time, 
scarcely  invested  with  sufficient  authority  to  make 
reductions  in  the  various  supply  programs,  muni- 
tions, food,  etc. 

105 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

The  problem  of  the  allocation  of  tonnage  is  largely 
a  problem  of  securing  that  the  different  requirements 
which  make  demands  upon  tonnage  should  be  ad- 
justed in  the  fairest  and  best  way,  and  these  require- 
ments can  only  be  so  restricted  by  the  experts  in 
each  class  of  commodities.  It  is,  for  instance,  im- 
possible for  any  except  the  munitions  experts  of  the 
different  Allied  countries  to  deal  with  the  restriction  of 
the  Allied  munitions  programs  within  specified  limits. 

The  Allies  are  accordingly  agreed : 

(a)  That  America,  France,  Italy,  and  Great 
Britain  will  all  tabulate  and  make  available  to  each 
other  a  statement  showing  in  detail  and  as  nearly  as 
possible  in  the  same  form,  each  class  of  requirements 
for  which  tonnage  is  needed,  and,  secondly,  the  ton- 
nage now  available  and  likely  to  be  available  in 
future  through  new  building,  etc.  These  require- 
ments having  been  classified  (showing  the  source  of 
supply,  etc.)»  and  having  been  adjusted  (1)  to  secure 
a  reasonably  uniform  standard  of  adequacy  both  as 
between  classes  of  commodities  and  as  between  coun- 
tries, and  (2)  to  bring  the  total  within  the  carrying 
capacity  of  the  Allies  as  a  whole,  will  form  the  basis 
on  which  the  general  allocation  of  tonnage  will  be 
determined.  The  calculation  will  be  revised  at  con- 
venient intervals  in  the  light  of  losses,  new  building, 
war  requirements,  and  other  factors  in  the  problem ; 
but  it  will  be  an  essential  feature  of  the  scheme  that, 
subject  to  such  periodical  reallocation,  each  Nation 
shall  manage  and  supervise  the  tonnage  under  its 

control. 

106 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

(b)  That  the  neutral  and  interned  tonnage,  ob- 
tained through  any  channel  and  by  whatever  coun- 
try, shall  be  used  in  such  a  way  as  to  increase  by 
an  equal  extent  the  tonnage  in  direct  war  services, 
the  extra  tonnage  being  allotted  so  far  as  practicable 
to  the  most  urgent  war  need  of  any  of  the  Allies. 
The  method  of  allocation  will  be  worked  out  later, 
but  the  principle  is  recognized  that  it  is  urgency  of 
war  needs,  and  not  the  method  by  which  the  ton- 
nage has  been  obtained,  that  is  to  be  the  criterion. 

(c)  That  steps  shall  be  taken  to  bring  into  war 
services  all  possible  further  tonnage,  such  as  that 
in  South  America,  etc. 

(d)  That  control  over  cargoes  carried  shall  be  such 
as  to  insure  that  they  satisfy  the  most  urgent  war 
needs  in  respect  of  which  the  tonnage  has  been 
allotted. 

To  carry  out  (a)  and  (b)  above,  allied  bodies  for 
the  different  main  requirements  for  food,  for  muni- 
tions, and  for  raw  materials  will  be  formed  on  the 
model  of  the  Wheat  Executive,  America  being  asso- 
ciated with  these  bodies. 

It  being  necessary  in  order  to  obtain  decisions  by 
the  respective  governments  that  each  country  shall 
designate  one  or  two  Ministers — the  United  States 
one  or  two  special  delegates — who  will  be  responsible 
toward  then*  respective  governments  for  the  execu- 
tion of  the  agreements  arrived  at  and  who  will  meet 
in  conference  as  Allied  representatives  as  may  be 
necessary  from  time  to  time,  whether  in  Paris  or  in 

London,  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 

107 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

either  on  their  own  motion  or  at  the  request  of  the 
executive  departments,  it  was  resolved  that,  "for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  common  policy  above 
indicated,  the  appropriate  Ministers  in  France,  Italy, 
and  Great  Britain,  together  with  representatives  of 
America,  shall  take  steps  to  secure  the  necessary  ex- 
change of  information,  and  co-ordination  of  policy 
and  effort,  establishing  a  permanent  office  and  staff 
for  the  purpose." 

The  agreement  of  the  Allies  quoted  above 
did  not  contemplate  a  pxx>ling  of  tonnage  under 
a  single  direction.  In  fact,  as  the  record  shows, 
such  a  proposal  was  made  and  rejected,  partly 
because  the  Allies  with  tonnage  would  not  dele- 
gate the  absolute  power  to  dispose  of  it,  and 
partly  because  it  was  believed  that  such  a  plan 
would  not  lead  to  administrative  efficiency. 
The  plan  adopted  contemplated  a  complete 
interchange  of  information  upon  which  it  was 
expected  joint  action  could  be  taken.  Tonnage 
was  to  be  allocated  upon  the  general  principle 
that  there  should  be  a  reasonably  uniform  stand- 
ard of  adequacy  both  as  between  commodities 
and  countries.  It  was  recognized  that  the 
main  difficulty  was  to  get  the  facts  as  to  the 
imports  necessary,  and  that  these  facts  could 
be  secured  best  by  Inter-Allied  bodies,  the  mem- 
bers of  which  would  submit  the  import  programs 
of  their  respective  countries  fully  and  frankly 

108 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

and  invite  friendly  criticism  thereon.  Because 
of  the  shortage  of  shipping,  it  was  contem- 
plated that  the  total  programs  of  imports  thus 
made  would  be  balanced  against  the  total  avail- 
able shipping  and  necessary  adjustments  made 
to  bring  the  requirements,  if  possible,  within 
the  carrying  power  of  the  ships. 

Pursuant  to  the  action  of  the  Paris  Conference 
quoted  above,  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport 
Council  was  formed  in  February,  1918,  Its 
Chairman,  while  sitting  in  England,  was  Lord 
Robert  Cecil,  and  while  sitting  in  France,  M. 
Etienne  Clementel.  As  rapidly  as  possible 
thereafter,  Program  Committees,  covering  the 
whole  range  of  imported  commodities,  were 
constituted,  an  existing  committee  being  used 
if  one  had  theretofore  been  organized.  At  the 
time  the  armistice  was  signed  the  following 
Program  Committees  were  functioning: 

1.  Wool 

2.  Cotton 

3.  Hides  and  Leather 

4.  Tobacco 

5.  Paper 

6.  Timber 

7.  Petroleum 

8.  Flax,  Hemp,  and  Jute 

9.  Coal  and  Coke 

109 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

10.  Cereals 

I,  ^°- 

by  a 


m  0  Co-ordinated 

11.  Oil  Seeds 


12.  Sugar 

ia    TV/T  j  T<  i  lood  Council 

13.  Meats  and  Fats 


14.  Nitrates 

15.  Aircraft 

16.  Chemicals 

17.  Explosives 

18.  Non-ferrous  Metals 

19.  Mechanical  Transport 

20.  Steel 


Co-ordinated 

by  a 
Munitions  Council 


The  working  of  these  various  bodies  in  prac- 
tice was  most  interesting.  Representatives  from 
the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France  and 
Italy  would  meet  and  state  to  each  other  their 
respective  requirements  of  a  given  commodity. 
Instead  of  dealing  at  arm's-length  through  the 
usual  diplomatic  channels,  an  expert  from  each 
government  would  be  in  a  position  to  criticize 
the  demands  of  the  other  governments,  and, 
in  turn,  to  receive  their  criticisms.  Many  of 
the  misunderstandings  which  resulted  from  in- 
complete facts  were  avoided.  When  the  de- 
tailed program  was  agreed  upon  a  government 
was  better  able  to  curtail  its  requirements  be- 
cause of  accurate  knowledge  of  the  sacrifices 
made  by  the  other  governments. 

It  was  never  contemplated  that  the  Allied 

Maritime  Transport  Council  should  control  the 

no 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

various  Program  Committees.  Inasmuch,  how- 
ever, as  ships  were  the  limiting  factor,  it  was 
essential  that,  when  the  various  committees 
had  reduced  their  programs  so  far  as  in  their 
judgment  seemed  possible,  there  must  be  fur- 
ther reduction  if  the  total  programs  exceeded 
the  amount  of  transport  available.  This  re- 
sulted in  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council 
receiving  the  programs  of  all  the  committees  and 
making  adjustments  to  bring  the  supplies 
within  the  carrying  capacity  of  the  ships. 
Moreover,  it  was  not  only  the  programs  of  the 
Allied  countries  that  were  dealt  with.  By 
means  cf  control  of  the  sources  of  supply,  a  very 
real  control  was  exercised  over  neutrals.  An 
effort  was  made  to  ascertain  their  needs  and 
to  see  that  those  needs  were  supplied  as  equi- 
tably as  possible,  having  in  view  the  world  short- 
age and  the  conflicting  needs  of  Allies  and  of 
other  neutrals. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  represent- 
atives of  the  various  governments  on  the  Pro- 
gram Committees  or  the  Allied  Maritime  Trans- 
port Council  did  not  have  power  finally  to  bind 
their  respective  governments.  To  have  given 
them  such  a  power  would  have  enabled  them 
to  control  absolutely  the  economic  order  of  the 
world.  Even  under  the  pressure  of  war,  the 

governments  were  not  willing  to  confer  such  a 

ill 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

power  upon  a  representative  on  an  "interna- 
tional board,  on  which  he  might  be  outvoted." 
The  decision  as  to  what  should  be  imported, 
where  it  should  be  imported  from,  and  what 
ships  should  be  used  to  carry  the  imports  were 
all,  however,  decisions  which  depended  largely 
upon  the  facts.  The  finding  of  the  fact,  there- 
fore, if  correctly  presented,  tended  more  and 
more  to  make  the  decision.  Many  newspaper 
references  to  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport 
Council  and  the  Program  Committees,  and  some 
books  and  magazine  articles,  have  given  the 
impression  that  they  were  international  bodies 
controlling  the  vital  supplies  of  life.  Thic  is  not 
accurate.  The  control  was  a  national  control, 
dependent  upon  control  of  sources  of  supply 
and  of  shipping,  embargoes  on  imports, 
the  control  of  bunkering  privileges,  and  any 
other  measure  which  any  of  the  governments 
had  put  into  force  during  the  war.  The  inter- 
national bodies  referred  to  in  this  article  were 
fact-finding  bodies,  meeting  for  international 
counsel  in  order  to  determine  by  unanimous 
agreement  how  the  various  national  controls 
should  best  be  exercised  in  order  to  win  the  war. 
Each  government  settled  its  own  problems, 
but  its  manner  of  exercising  its  control  was 
greatly  affected — especially  in  the  European 

countries  which  had  been  longer  in  the  war — 

112 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

by  the  findings  of  the  Program  Committees 
and  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council. 

After  the  programs  were  agreed  upon  by  the 
several  governments,  they  could  be  carried  out 
severally  or  by  a  common  executive,  as  the 
exigencies  of  each  case  might  require.  These 
executives  were  located  at  the  point  where  they 
could  operate  most  efficiently.  The  Nitrate 
Executive  was  located  in  Washington,  and 
when  the  war  closed  an  arrangement  already 
had  been  made  by  which  the  Hides  and  Leather 
Executive  should  be  transferred  to  Washington. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Executive  Department 
of  the  Food  Council  remained  until  the  end  of 
the  war  in  London,  although  it  is  probable 
that  if  the  war  had  lasted  much  longer  it  also 
would  have  been  transferred  to  Washington. 

To  illustrate  the  wide  range  of  subjects 
covered  by  these  Inter-Allied  bodies  a  few  cases 
may  be  cited.  Prior  to  the  war  wheat  from 
India  went  through  the  Mediterranean  to  Eng- 
land, passing  on  the  way  wheat  going  from  the 
United  States  to  Italy.  Under  the  Wheat 
Executive  and  the  Program  Committees,  wheat 
from  India  stopped  at  Italy  and  the  corre- 
sponding amount  of  wheat  that  would  have 
gone  from  America  to  Italy  went  to  England 
or  France.  This  was  not  only  a  saving  of  ships, 

but  an  avoidance  of  an  unnecessary  submarine 

us 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

risk  in  the  dangerous  western  Mediterranean. 
England's  oil-supply  had  come  in  very  large 
quantity  from  the  oil-fields  of  the  Orient,  in 
which  her  merchants  had  an  interest,  especially 
from  Burma,  Borneo,  and  Sumatra.  American 
oil  companies  had  built  up  a  large  market  in 
China  and  were  carrying  oil  from  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  to  China.  A  re-routing,  which  was 
about  to  go  into  operation  when  the  armistice 
was  signed,  was  arranged  through  the  Petro- 
leum Conference,  by  which  the  American  oil 
should  go  to  England  and  the  oil  from  the  Far 
Eastern  points  should  go  to  China.  Early 
in  1918  Italy  was  desperately  short  of  coal. 
Through  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council 
an  arrangement  was  made  by  which  coal  was 
sent  from  southern  France  to  Italy,  partly  by 
an  all-rail  route  and  partly  by  rail  to  Marseilles, 
and  then  by  ship  to  Italy.  To  take  care  of  the 
coal  needs  of  France,  which  would  have  been 
seriously  imperiled  by  this  diversion  of  coal 
to  Italy,  large  shipments  of  Cardiff  coal  were 
sent  across  the  Channel  to  the  northern  French 
ports.  The  March  21  (1918)  drive  of  the  Ger- 
mans precipitated  a  very  serious  coal  question. 
The  principal  coal -supply  of  France  was  in 
what  is  called  the  Pas  de  Calais  district.  The 
German  military  success  not  only  reduced  the 
output  of  the  mines  in  this  district,  but — what 

114 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

was  more  serious — prevented  the  carrying  of 
coal  from  this  district  to  the  south  of  France 
because  of  the  interruption  of  traffic  on  the 
main  railway  line  to  the  south.  An  arrange- 
ment was  therefore  made  by  which  the  English 
army  satisfied  its  coal  needs  from  the  French 
coal-mines  in  the  northern  district,  and  English 
coal  was  sent  by  ships  to  the  more  southerly 
ports  of  France  to  take  the  place  of  the  coal 
which  otherwise  would  have  come  from  the 
Pas  de  Calais  district.  The  whole  theory  of 
the  Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council  was 
that,  because  of  the  pressure  of  war  upon  ma- 
terial and  man  power,  it  was  the  duty  of  all 
the  States  fighting  against  Germany  to  ascer- 
tain what  were  the  paramount  war  needs  and 
how  those  needs  could  be  satisfied  by  the  least 
consumption  of  material  and  the  least  waste 
of  man  power.  It  was  really  a  world-wide  ap- 
plication of  the  doctrine  of  "Goods  and  Ser- 
vices" which  the  War  Savings  Committees 
in  both  England  and  the  United  States  have 
made  familiar  to  millions  of  people. 

When  one  examines  carefully  the  structure 
of  the  Inter-Allied  Committees  which  the  war 
forced  upon  the  United  States,  Great  Britain, 
France  and  Italy,  certain  results  stand  out 
which  may  well  be  remembered: 

(1)  Even  when  the  Allies  were  fighting  for 

115 


their  lives  it  was  not  possible  —  nor  was  it 
deemed  desirable — to  bring  about  any  arrange- 
ment by  which  their  resources  could  be  merged 
under  a  single  control. 

(2)  As  long  as  the  Allies  had  the  strong  com- 
mon purpose  of  winning  the  war  the  questions 
about  which  they  differed  were  largely  questions 
of  fact.     Inter-Allied  bodies  to  ascertain  the 
facts  were,  therefore,  of  the  greatest  value  in 
securing  intelligent  and  united  action  by  the 
responsible  authorities. 

(3)  A  permanent  secretariat,  with  members 
from  all  of  the  States  concerned,  whose  busi- 
ness it  was  to  get  the  facts  and  collate  them  for 
responsible  Ministers  in  close  touch  with  the 
home  governments,  was  found  to  be  an  effective 
way  of  getting  ready  acceptance  by  the  govern- 
ments of  a  common  plan  of  action. 

The  signing  of  the  armistice  made  a  great 
change  in  the  world's  economic  problem.  Dur- 
ing the  last  year  of  the  war  almost  all  ships 
entering  the  war  area  had  been  convoyed  by 
naval  vessels.  This  necessarily  made  the  turn 
around  of  ships  much  longer.  So  soon  as  the 
Allies  were  able  to  abandon  the  convoy  system 
it  was  possible  to  operate  ships  actually  in 
service  much  more  efficiently.  Moreover,  with 
the  cessation  of  hostilities  there  was  an  immedi- 

116 


AGENCIES  FORCED  BY  WAR 

ate  release  of  a  great  number  of  merchant-ships 
that  had  been  serving  the  Allied  navies  and 
armies.  The  passing  of  the  extreme  shortage 
of  ships  brought  at  once  into  potential  service 
quantities  of  supplies  which  had  been  stored 
in  sections  of  the  world  remote  from  the  battle 
area,  and  which  had  been  inaccessible  because 
of  the  inability  to  spare  the  maritime  transport 
for  the  long  haul. 

Despite,  however,  the  changed  nature  of  the 
problem,  it  is  obviously  one  in  which  some 
measure  of  co-operation  will  be  needed  until 
vast  armies  are  demobilized  and  world  order 
has  been  partially  restored.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  the  Peace  Conference  now  sit- 
ting in  Paris  has  found  it  necessary  to  create 
an  Allied  Food  Council  and  an  Allied  Economic 
Council,  upon  both  of  which  America  is  repre- 
sented. While  exact  information  as  to  the 
structure  of  these  two  councils  has  not  yet 
reached  America,  it  would  seem  clear  that  they 
are  formed  on  the  same  principle  as  the  Allied 
Maritime  Transport  Council  and  the  Program 
Committees.  That  is  to  say,  no  State  can  be 
bound  without  its  own  assent.2 

*  Very  little  as  yet  has  been  published  upon  the  subject- matter 
of  this  chapter.  An  official  account  of  the  working  of  the  Allied 
Maritime  Transport  Council  has  been  prepared  by  Mr.  J.  A. 
Salter,  of  the  British  Ministry  of  Shipping,  who  served  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Council.  This  publication  contains  an  accurate  his- 
9  U7 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

We  have  now  considered  some  of  the  forces 
which  have  brought  and  are  bringing  the  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  world  together.  We  have 
briefly  reviewed  the  visions  of  those  who  have 
dreamed  of  a  single  government  covering  the 
whole  world.  We  have  also  reviewed  the  ef- 
forts of  the  jurists,  statesmen  and  diplomatists 
to  lessen  the  horrors  of  war  and  to  avoid  war,  if 
and  when  possible,  by  arbitration  or  other  peace- 
able methods.  We  have  noted  the  great  increase 
in  co-operative  action  among  the  several  States 
in  the  last  century.  And,  finally,  we  have  seen 
the  impetus  toward  co-operation  and  the  actual 
practice  in  co-operation  which  the  great  war 
has  given  the  several  States  allied  against  Ger- 
many. We  are  now  to  consider  the  powerful 
and  rapidly  growing  force  which,  unrestrained, 
tends  to  drive  separate  States  apart — the  prin- 
ciple of  nationality. 

tory  of  the  formation  of  the  Council,  with  much  detailed  informa- 
tion as  to  its  activities  during  the  year  1918. 

A  League  of  Nations,  Vol.  I,  No.  7,  published  bimonthly  by 
the  World  Peace  Foundation,  contains  some  interesting  material 
relating  to  the  Supreme  War  Council,  the  Allied  Maritime  Trans- 
port Council,  and  other  affiliated  bodies.  It  is,  of  course,  too 
early  to  get  all  of  the  facts  with  reference  to  the  working  of  the 
Supreme  War  Council.  When  the  facts  are  available  we  may 
expect  them  to  show  the  great  difficulties  of  co-operation  among 
Allies,  as  well  as  the  advantages  which  flow  from  co-operation 
when  it  can  be  secured.  The  brief  outline  of  the  work  of  the 
economic  bodies  given  in  the  foregoing  chapter  is  based  mainly 
upon  the  experience  of  the  author  during  the  year  1918  as  one 
of  the  advisers  of  the  Allied  Maritime  Transport  Council. 
118 


VII 

THE   PRINCIPLE   OF   NATIONALITY 

ONE  principle  for  which  this  war  was  fought 
was  the  political  and  territorial  inde- 
pendence of  small  nations.  One  of  the  first 
results  of  the  war  will  be  the  conferring  of  inde- 
pendent statehood  upon  various  national  units 
which  have  been  denied  independence  by  the 
force  of  larger  States.  For  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years  the  principle  of  nationality  has  had 
a  steady  growth.  It  has  had  its  periods  of  prog- 
ress and  its  periods  of  reaction,  but  the  general 
current  of  the  stream  has  moved  steadily  and 
irresistibly  forward.  The  strong  impulse  toward 
separate  national  States  preceded  the  great 
democratic  movement,  and,  in  a  sense,  is  in- 
dependent of  the  impulse  toward  self-govern- 
ment. In  fact,  as  Thomas  Hill  Green  has  pointed 
out,  the  aspiration  for  national  unity,  which 
must  precede  the  organization  of  the  State  on  a 
sound  basis,  for  the  time  being  readily  yields 
itself  to  direction  by  a  dynasty.  Indeed,  the 

119 


THE  SOCIETY  OP  FREE  STATES 

first  two  centuries  of  the  history  of  the  national 
State  system  were  passed  under  the  general 
prevalence  and  domination  of  the  dynastic 
principle.  At  the  same  time  it  is  true  that  the 
desire  for  the  separate  self-determined  national 
State  has  received  a  great  acceleration  with 
the  spread  of  democracy.  If  men  are  really  to 
govern  themselves  (as  opposed  to  having  the 
forms  of  democracy),  they  desire  to  be  associ- 
ated with  other  men  with  whom  they  can  really 
co-operate.  They  must  be  in  a  group  the 
members  of  which  have  points  of  likeness  which 
greatly  outweigh  their  points  of  difference.1 

It  is  not  an  accident,  therefore,  that  in  the 
long  struggle  between  centralized  political  or- 
ganization and  local  self-government  the  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  men  and  women  par- 
ticipating in  government  has  led  to  a  more  and 
more  insistent  demand  for  the  grouping  into 
separate  States  of  those  who,  because  of  race, 
or  geography,  or  religion,  or  tradition,  or  the 
demands  of  trade,  are  conscious  of  a  permanent, 
common  interest.  Viscount  Bryce  disclaims  the 
ability  to  define  nationality,  and  then  gives 
this  excellent  picture  of  what  we  mean  when  we 
speak  of  it: 

1  See  especially  C.  J.  H.  Hayes,  Political  and  Social  History  of 
Modern  Europe;  Robinson  and  Beard,  The  Development  of  Modem 
Europe;  J.  H.  Rose,  Nationality  in  Modern  History. 

120 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

But  we  can  recogniee  it  when  we  see  it,  and  can 
in  each  case  explain  by  the  light  of  history  how  it 
comes  to  be  what  it  is,  the  product  of  various  con- 
current forces,  which  have  given  to  a  section  or  group 
of  men  a  sense  of  their  unity,  as  the  conscious  pos- 
sessors of  common  qualities  and  tendencies  which 
are  in  some  way  distinctive,  marking  off  the  group 
from  others  and  creating  in  it  the  feeling  of  a  cor- 
porate life.  Race  is  one  of  these  forces,  language  is 
another,  religion  is  a  third,  often  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance. A  common  literature — perhaps  in  the  rude 
form  of  traditions  and  ballads  in  which  those  tradi- 
tions are  preserved,  as  in  the  songs  of  the  Serbian 
people — all  these  things  count.  The  memories  of  the 
heroes  who  helped  to  achieve  liberty  for  Switzerland, 
of  the  perils  they  faced  and  the  victories  they  won, 
have  been  to  its  people  a  constant  stimulus  to  na- 
tional sentiment.  Even  stronger,  in  some  countries, 
than  recollections  of  glory  have  been  the  recollections 
of  suffering,  of  sorrows  endured,  and  of  sacrifices 
nobly  but  vainly  made.2 

A  short  review  of  the  development  of  some 
of  the  principal  national  States  will  easily  prove 
how  correct  Viscount  Bryce  is.  Austria-Hun- 
gary before  this  war  was  a  State,  but  not  a  nation ; 
Poland  and  Bohemia  were  nations,  but  not 
States;  France  and  Italy  were  nations  as  well  as 
States,  but  neither  was  racially  homogeneous. 

2  James  Bryce,  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime,  Chap.  VII, 
p.  129. 

121 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

The  United  States  is  a  strong  federal  State,  but 
because  of  the  number  of  races  from  all  over 
the  world  that  make  up  its  population  it  had 
been  questioned  whether  it  was  really  a  nation. 
The  ready  acceptance  of  a  universal  military 
service  law  and  the  willingness  of  Americans  of 
foreign  birth  and  even  of  foreign  tongue  to  die 
in  France  for  what  they  believed  the  word 
America  signified,  may  properly  be  said  to 
have  proved  that  America  is  a  nation.  The  an- 
cient States  were  not  properly  national  States, 
although  Athens,  Sparta  and  Rome  might  well 
be  called  semi-national  city-States.  Neither  the 
ancient  patriarchal  empires  nor  Greece  nor 
Rome,  however,  welded  their  dependent  popu- 
lations into  such  homogeneous  cultural  groups 
as  to  enable  us  to  say  that  they  were  the  con- 
scious possessors  of  common  qualities  and  mut- 
ual interests  or  had  that  "will  to  live  together  " 
which  Renan  believed  to  be  the  ultimate  test  of 
nationality.3 

Rome  held  the  world  in  comparative  order 
for  several  centuries,  and  the  tradition  of  Rome 
profoundly  affected  government  for  many  cen- 
turies following  her  fall.  With  the  gradual 
breaking  up  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  Feudal 
System  furnished  but  a  rude  and  loosely  knit 


3  Cf .  James  Bryc6,  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  Chaps.  II  and  VII. 
122 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

substitute  for  imperial  order  and  authority.  Out 
of  the  decentralization  of  the  Feudal  System, 
however,  the  forces  of  historical  development 
ultimately  produced  a  new  and  more  advanced 
form  of  unified  political  organization — the  mod- 
ern national  State.  The  vassal  looked  to  his  lord 
for  justice  and  order.  Clashes  between  feudal 
lords  eliminated  the  weak  and  developed  the 
strong  and  an  overlord  or  king  was  produced. 
The  beginnings  of  modern  commerce  and  the 
accompanying  rise  of  a  middle  class  profoundly 
affected  the  political  development  of  western 
Europe.  The  king  began  to  have  at  his  disposal 
an  independent  source  of  income,  which  enabled 
him  to  hire  a  loyal  army  and  administrative 
organization  and  render  himself  independent  of 
the  feudal  lords.  Then  the  intermediate  feudal 
lords  disappeared  and  there  was  a  direct  rally- 
ing of  the  people  about  the  king.  If  the  people 
had  enough  traits  in  common,  and  were  con- 
scious of  that  fact,  they  became  a  nation.  From 
the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century  to  the 
present  time  this  process  of  national  develop- 
ment has  been  operating  unceasingly.4 

The  history  of  France  may  be  taken  as  an 
illustration  of  this  process  of  nation-building. 
Charlemagne,  in  the  eighth  century,  was  King  of 

4  F.  Oppenheimer,  The  State,  Chaps.  V,  VI;  W.  Cunningham, 
Western  Civilization  in  Its  Economic  Aspects,  Book  V. 

123 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

the  Franks,  whether  dwelling  in  Gaul  or  Ger- 
many. But  his  rule  was  the  rule  of  the  Roman 
ideal  of  universalism  based  on  force.  There  was 
no  real  ethnic  or  cultural  connection  or  unity 
between  his  German  and  his  French  subjects. 
After  his  death  his  grandsons  divided  his  empire, 
and  we  have  a  king  of  the  western  Franks,  or 
of  France,  and  a  king  of  the  eastern  Franks, 
or  of  Germany.  Between  lay  Lotharingia  (Lor- 
raine), the  inheritance  of  the  third  grandson, 
that  strip  of  territory  for  which  France  and 
Germany  have  ever  since  battled.  In  the  tenth 
century  the  western  Frankish  kingdom,  now 
called  France,  fell  to  the  powerful  Capetian 
family.  The  struggle  between  royalty  and  the 
feudal  lords  went  on,  and  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury Philip  Augustus  won  back  the  northern 
part  of  France  from  England.  But  France  was 
not  yet  a  nation.  It  took  three  centuries  more, 
the  Hundred  Years'  War  and  the  dynastic  and 
civil  wars  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  then 
France,  with  all  the  cruelties,  tyrannies,  and 
limitations  of  its  government,  became  properly 
a  national  State.  What  made  her  a  nation?  A 
score  of  forces.  The  economic  elements  under- 
lying political  centralization  and  national  dif- 
ferentiation; the  development  of  her  language, 
which  even  in  the  Middle  Ages  exercised  an 
influence  beyond  her  borders;  her  bitter  suffer- 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

ings  for  several  centuries;  the  vision  and  the 
victories  of  the  peasant  girl  from  Domremy,  and 
the  triumph  of  the  white-plumed  Knight  of 
Navarre.  From  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  cen- 
turies on,  France  is  not  only  a  State,  but  a  na- 
tional State.  Her  people  love  her,  not  because 
they  are  ordered  to,  but  because  she  is  France. 
Bazaine,  when  tried  for  the  surrender  of  the 
fortress  of  Metz  in  1871,  defended  his  course 
by  asking  what  there  was  left  to  fight  for — the 
Emperor  had  capitulated,  the  independent  army 
had  surrendered.  The  Due  d'Aumale,  one  of 
his  trial  judges,  responded:  "There  is  always 
France!'9  That  is  nationality ! 5 

In  England  the  contest  between  the  feudal 
nobility  which  we  know  as  the  War  of  the 
Roses  prepared  the  way  for  the  extinction  of  the 
Feudal  System.  Henry  VII,  an  alert  and  vigor- 
ous king,  established  the  House  of  Tudor  and 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  dynastic  national 
state  in  England.  A  middle  class  developed 
which  owed  its  allegiance  directly  to  the  head  of 
the  State.  By  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign  Eng- 
lishmen were  fighting  for  England  rather  than 
for  their  particular  lord,  and  a  half -century  later 
the  new  forces  were  to  demonstrate  their  su- 
periority even  over  the  Crown.  What  made 

6  Cf.  C.  V.  Langlois,  The  Historic  Rdle  of  France  Among  the 
Nations;  G.  B.  Adams,  The  Growth  of  the  French  Nation. 
125 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

England  a  nation  as  well  as  a  State?  Was  it  the 
personality  and  statesmanship  of  Henry  VIII 
and  Elizabeth,  or  the  separation  of  the  English 
Church  from  Rome,  or  Shakespeare,  or  Drake? 
It  was  all  of  these  and  a  dozen  forces  in  addition ! 
When  Nelson  flew  his  signal  at  the  battle  of 
Trafalgar,  "England  expects  every  man  to  do 
his  duty,"  not  only  the  seamen,  but  all  the  people 
recognized  Nelson's  clear  right  to  ask  for  the 
performance  of  duty  in  England's  name.  The 
men  on  the  Victory  fought  not  for  George  III, 
not  even  for  Nelson,  but  for  England.  That, 
again,  is  nationality ! 6 

In  the  sixteenth  century  the  little  country  of 
Holland,  aroused  by  Spanish  tyranny,  and  led 
by  William  the  Silent,  broke  away  from  Spain. 
The  heroism  of  a  great  man  and  the  suffering 
of  a  great  people,  so  eloquently  pictured  by 
Motley,  made  a  nation.  What  was  written  on 
parchment  at  Minister  and  Osnabriick  only 
confirmed  the  rights  that  had  been  born  in 
little  Holland's  hour  of  travail.  The  men 
and  women  who  kept  the  Spanish  invader 
away  from  their  land  by  letting  in  the  friendly 
ocean  to  devastate  their  hard-won  fields  were 
ready  to  form  a  truly  national  State.  They 

6  A.  F.  Pollard,  Factors  in  Modern  History;  The  History  of 
England,  from  the  Accession  of  Edward  VI  to  the  Death  of  Eliza- 
beth; H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  Political  History  of  England,  H85-15W. 

126 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

preferred  a  drowned  land  to  a  lost  land.  That, 
once  more,  is  nationality!7 

By  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
national  States  had  been  started  in  nearly  all 
of  Europe.  Only  in  Germany,  Austria-Hungary, 
Italy,  and  the  Balkans  had  the  process  been 
postponed,  partly  because  of  unfavorable  geo- 
graphical situation,  partly  because  the  dying 
fingers  of  the  Hapsburg  Dynasty  had  not  yet 
been  finally  loosed,  and  partly  because  these 
States  had  not  been  so  deeply  affected  by  that 
enemy  of  the  feudal  regime — the  Commercial 
Revolution. 

In  1789  the  French  Revolution  blazed  out. 
The  new  commerce  and  a  century  of  adminis- 
trative experience  had  strengthened  the  French 
middle  class,  which  was  now  able  to  defy 
and  overpower  king,  nobles,  and  clergy.  The 
Revolution  purged  France  of  its  misgoverning 
classes,  and,  despite  its  excesses,  it  loosed  new 
forces  of  idealism  which  were  to  affect  the  whole 
world.  Napoleon  seized  these  new  forces,  at- 
tached them  to  his  person,  and  conquered 
Europe.  The  Napoleonic  Wars,  however,  de- 
veloped into  a  clear-cut  contest  between  the 
revived  ideal  of  Imperial  Rome  and  the  new 
principle  of  nationality.  And  the  principle  of 

7  J.  L.  Motley,  The  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic;  P.  J.  Blok,  A 
History  of  the  People  of  the  Netherlands. 
127 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

nationality  won.  Napoleon  might  enter  Madrid 
and  Berlin  and  Vienna  and  Moscow,  but  he 
could  not  make  Spaniards  and  Germans  and 
Russians  into  Frenchmen.  The  very  humilia- 
tion of  the  Germans  in  the  Napoleonic  Wars 
furnished  the  impetus  for  the  development 
of  their  belated  nationality.  Stein  and  Fichte 
and  Arndt  and  Scharnhorst  hewed  the  stones 
which  Bismarck  and  Moltke  later  used  to 
build  not  only  a  new  German  State,  but  a 
German  nation.8 

Europe — in  the  early  nineteenth  century — 
left  Italy,  like  Germany,  a  "geographical  expres- 
sion," and  endeavored  to  maintain  this  arti- 
ficial separation  of  the  Italian  States  by  leaving 
them  under  the  guidance  of  the  House  of  Haps- 
burg  and  the  Vatican.  But  Mazzini  must  be 
kept  from  talking  and  writing  if  Italian  aspira- 
tions were  to  be  denied.  This  was  impossible, 
so  the  modern  Italian  State  emerged  in  the 
third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.  When 
the  army  of  Piedmont  was  routed  by  the  Austri- 
ans  at  the  battle  of  Novara  in  1849,  young  Vic- 
tor Emmanuel,  with  his  army  hopelessly  beaten, 
exclaimed,  "And  yet,  by  God!  Italy  shall  be!" 


8  J.  H.  Rose,  Nationality  in  Modern  History,  Lectures  II-V; 
The  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vols.  VIII-IX;  Marriott  and 
Robertson,  The  Evolution  of  Prussia;  Munroe  Smith,  Bismarck 
and  German  Unity. 

128 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

There  was  no  Italian  State  at  that  time,  but 
there  was  an  Italian  nation  in  the  making. 
The  sagacity,  courage,  and  vigor  of  Cavour,  the 
dashing  bravery  of  Garibaldi  and  his  "Thou- 
sand Red  Shirts,"  and  the  sound  judgment  of 
Victor  Emmanuel  brought  both  political  and 
national  unity  to  Italy.9 

But  in  the  very  period  when  German  and 
Italian  unity  was  being  achieved,  the  repressed 
national  aspirations  in  central,  eastern,  and 
southeastern  Europe  were  raising  new  national 
problems.  The  Balkan  nations,  despite  their 
own  patriotic  efforts  and  the  not  disinterested 
aid  of  Russian  Pan-Slavism,  had  been  unable 
to  obtain  more  than  partial  political  emanci- 
pation by  1914.  Rumanians  and  Croats  were 
repressed  by  Magyars;  Serbs  and  Slovenes  by 
Austria;  and  portions  of  all  the  Balkan  na- 
tionalities by  the  Turks.  The  Finns  were  sub- 
merged in  Russia;  Poland  had  been  partitioned 
among  Russians,  Austrians,  and  Prussians;  the 
Czechs  and  Slovaks  were  repressed  by  Austria. 
Moreover,  parts  of  great  historic  nationalities, 
such  as  the  French  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  the 
Danes  of  Schleswig,  and  the  Italians  of  the 
"Irredenta"  district,  were  separated  artificially 
from  their  natural  political  union  with  their 

9  W.  R.  Thayer,  The  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence;  The  Life 
and  Times  of  Cavour;  B.  King,  A  History  of  Italian  Unity. 

129 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

mother-countries.     Ireland,  in  spite  of  Glad- 
stone's efforts,  was  still  awaiting  home  rule.10 

In  all  of  this  striving  for  nationality  we  see 
two  great  forces  running:  the  principle  of  free- 
dom and  democracy,  which  makes  men  and 
women  ardently  desire  a  greater  and  greater 
participation  in  their  own  government,  and, 
paralleling  this,  and  essential  if  freedom  and 
liberty  are  to  be  real,  the  inevitable  tendency  of 
self-governing  groups  to  arrange  themselves  in 
homogeneous  and  separate  political  units.  Self- 
government  involves  the  bowing  of  the  minority 
to  the  majority  except  in  those  cases  where  the 
majority  attempt  to  interfere  with  life  or  liberty 
or  religion  or  other  rights  which  men  commonly 
regard  as  a  part  of  a  free  political  order.  But  if 
the  majority  and  the  minority  have  little  or 
nothing  in  common,  we  have  not  self-govern- 
ment, but  a  government  of  one  race  or  class  by 
another  race  or  class.  As  President  Lowell  has 
said  in  his  book  on  Public  Opinion  and  Popular 
Government:  '*  Public  opinion  to  be  worthy  of  the 
name,  to  be  the  proper  motive  force  in  a  de- 
mocracy, must  be  really  public;  and  popular 
government  is  based  upon  the  assumption  of  a 
public  opinion  of  that  kind.  In  order  that  it 

10  Arnold  J.  Toynbee,  Nationality  and  the  War;  H.  A.  Gibbons, 
The  New  Map  of  Europe;  Stoddard  and  Frank,  The  Stakes  of  the 
War;  James  Bryce,  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime,  Chap.  VII. 

130 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

may  be  public  a  majority  is  not  enough,  and 
unanimity  is  not  required,  but  the  opinion  must 
be  such  that  while  the  minority  may  not  share 
it,  they  feel  bound,  by  conviction,  not  by  fear, 
to  accept  it;  and  if  democracy  is  complete  the 
submission  of  the  minority  must  be  given  un- 
grudgingly.' ' n  The  difficulty  of  drawing  the  line 
in  the  practical  field  of  statesmanship,  which 
has  to  deal  in  a  concrete  and  immediate  way 
with  adjusting  the  impatient  and  conflicting 
claims  of  national  groups,  is,  of  course,  endless. 
Ireland  wants  home  rule  from  England;  Ulster 
then  wants  home  rule  from  Ireland ;  half  a  dozen 
counties  then  want  home  rule  from  Ulster. 
Obviously,  this  process  of  self-determination 
could  go  on  until  we  had  reached  a  group  of 
three,  in  which  the  minority  of  one  would  self- 
determine  himself  away  from  the  other  two.  The 
overlapping  claims  of  the  national  groups  in  the 
Balkans  present  no  less  baffling  problems.  Natu- 
ral geographic  boundaries,  which  can  scarcely 
be  ignored,  perversely  refuse  to  coincide  with 
national  groupings.12 

When  we  turn  to  the  problems  that  confront 
the   Peace   Conference   the  difficulties  of  re- 

11  A.  L.  Lowell,  op.  cit.,  pp.  14-15. 

u  Cf .  L.  Dominian,  The  Frontiers  of  Language  and  Nationality 
in  Europe;  Arnold  J.  Toynbee,  Nationality  and  the  War; 
Thomas  G.  Masaryk,  The  Problem  of  Small  Nations  in  the  European 
Crisis. 

131 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

creating  Europe  from  Danzig  and  Finland  on 
the  north  to  the  Adriatic  and  ^Egean  seas  on  the 
south  present  a  series  of  problems  that  will 
sorely  tax  human  wisdom.  Poland,  very  prop- 
erly, will  be  restored  to  its  ancient  freedom,  but 
the  exact  determination  of  its  boundaries  may 
well  create  a  new  Irish  or  a  new  Ulster  problem. 
Bohemia,  with  its  neighboring  Moravia  and 
Slovakia,  will  become  a  Czecho-Slovak  State, 
but  the  aspirations  of  one  million  German  sub- 
jects to  the  north  and  west  of  Prague  may  lay 
the  ground  for  future  quarrels.  It  would  be 
easy  to  leave  these  Germans  as  a  part  of  Ger- 
many, were  not  the  problem  always  complicated 
by  economic  and  geographic  considerations. 
Hungary  at  last  is  to  be  separated  from  Austria, 
but  after  that  is  done  the  principle  of  nationality 
takes  away  from  Hungary  a  great  part  of  its 
territory  for  Rumania  and  another  large  por- 
tion for  the  Jugo-Slav  State.  In  that  portion 
which  goes  to  Rumania  there  will  be  a  large 
body  of  Magyars  entirely  cut  off  from  their 
brothers.  Here  again  this  population  might 
well  be  left  with  Hungary  did  not  geography 
prevent.  From  the  Austrian-Hungarian  Em- 
pire the  Slovenes  and  Croats  and  Serbs  have  al- 
ready broken  away.  These,  with  the  present 
Serbia  and  Montenegro,  will  constitute  the  new 
Jugo-Slav  State,  and  a  readjustment  of  boun- 

132 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

daries  along  national  lines  between  Serbians, 
Bulgarians,  Rumanians,  and  Greeks  will  be 
essential.  Albania  will  probably  remain  a  nomad 
State.  In  recognition  of  the  national  ambitions 
of  Italy,  the  Trentino  will  become  a  part  of 
that  State.  On  the  other  side  of  the  Adriatic 
the  problem  will  be  more  difficult  because  the 
intermixture  of  races  is  such  that  we  already 
find  conflicts  between  Italian  and  Jugo-Slav 
aspirations.13 

It  is  idle  to  attempt  to  forecast  the  exact  re- 
sults of  the  work  of  the  Peace  Conference  in 
making  the  new  boundaries,  but  the  principle 
upon  which  the  delegates  are  pledged  to  work, 
and  are  working,  is  clear.  The  AJlied  Govern- 
ments, as  well  as  President  Wilson,  are  pledged 
to  the  principle  of  nationality.  They  are  mak- 
ing a  final  ending  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
creation  of  the  new  States  will  be  a  definite  re- 
pudiation of  the  peace  that  comes  by  force — the 
peace  of  Caesar,  of  Charlemagne,  of  Napoleon, 
of  Bismarck.  The  work  begun  with  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia  in  1648 — which  abandoned  the  old 
imperial  ideal  and  introduced  into  European 
public  law  the  recognition  of  the  modern  Na- 


13  H.  A.  Gibbons,  The  Reconstruction  of  Poland  and  the  Near 
East;  A.  H.  E.  Taylor,  The  Future  of  the  Southern  Slavs;  J.  A.  R. 
Marriott,  The  Eastern  Question;  R.  W.  Seton- Watson,  The  Rise, 
of  Nationality  in  the  Balkans;  Racial  Problems  in  Hungary. 
10  133 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

tional  State — will  be  completed  when  this  treaty 
is  made.  The  States  of  Europe  will  all  be  started 
anew  upon  a  basis  of  a  nationality  more  com- 
pletely realized  than  ever  before  in  history.  Of 
course,  no  possible  solution  will  enable  the  Peace 
Conference  to  group  into  single  States  all  those 
having  common  aspirations,  common  tradi- 
tions, or  common  language.  The  Peace  Con- 
ferees will  do  the  best  they  can  within  the 
geographic  limitations  which  confront  them. 
For  weal  or  for  woe,  however,  the  principle  they 
will  follow  will  be  the  principle  of  nationality. 
If  this  increases  the  likelihood  of  international 
disturbance  the  remedy  must  be  found  in  some 
new  international  order  and  not  by  declining 
to  give  independence  to  those  who  have  legiti- 
mate aspirations  for  separate  nationality.  The 
responsibility  created  at  Westphalia  in  1648  and 
since  evaded  must  be  sincerely,  courageously, 
and  honestly  faced. 

We  must  not,  however,  deceive  ourselves.  It 
is  most  important  clearly  to  recognize  that  we 
are  trying  to  get  two  things.  If  we  want  world 
peace  at  whatever  price,  we  can  take  our  eyes 
away  from  liberty  and  think  only  of  order,  and 
the  principle  of  nationality  will  go  by  the  board. 
If  we  want  unrestricted  national  liberty  at  what- 
ever cost,  we  can  think  only  of  the  separate 
national  States  and  the  price  will  be  the  aban- 

134 


PRINCIPLE  OF  NATIONALITY 

domnent  of  a  League  of  Nations.  Our  first 
step  is  another  movement  away  from  the  peace 
of  force.  We  are  making  a  final  elimination 
of  the  Roman  Peace.  We  are  creating  new 
States  which  will  have  new  conflicting  inter- 
ests. We  are  recognizing  liberty  at  the  pos- 
sible expense  of  order,  because  we  believe  it  is 
worth  the  price.  The  reconciliation  of  these 
two  aims — world  order  and  national  indepen- 
dence— is  the  problem  of  the  Peace  Conference. 
We  must  go  at  our  task  with  open  eyes.  We 
must  start  by  admitting  that  we  cannot  get 
something  for  nothing,  that  if  national  States 
are  vital  to  the  orderly  development  of  the 
world,  as  we  believe  they  are,  we  must  sacrifice 
some  world  order  for  the  sake  of  the  develop- 
ment of  national  characteristics. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

THEODORE  RUYSSEN,  The  Principle  of  Nationality. 
J.  H.  ROSE,  Nationality  in  Modern  History. 
RAMSAY  Mum,  Nationalism  and  Internationalism. 
A.  E.  ZIMMERN,  Nationality  and  Government. 
JAMES  BRYCE,  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime, 

Chapter  VII. 
DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  World  Organization  as  Affected 

by  the  Nature  of  the  Modern  State. 
ARNOLD  J.  TOYNBEE,  Nationality  and  the  War. 

135 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

LEON  DOMINIAN,  The  Frontiers  of  Language  and 
Nationality  in  Europe. 

A.  F.  POLLARD,  Factors  in  Modern  History. 

W.  CUNNINGHAM,  Western  Civilization  in  its  Eco- 
nomic Aspects,  Book  V. 

R.  W.  SETON- WATSON,  et  a/.,  The  War  and  Democ- 
racy. 


VIII 

CAN  THE  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  WORLD  ORDER  AND 
NATIONAL  INDEPENDENCE   BE  RECONCILED? 

IN  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  referred  to 
the  insistent  demand  of  the  peoples  who  have 
taken  part  in  this  war  that  there  should  be 
some  better  method  of  settling  international  dis- 
putes than  war.  We  have  reviewed  some  of  the 
more  important  "peace  plans"  that  have  been 
made  by  philosophers  and  rulers  during  the  past 
three  hundred  years,  most  of  which  plans  laid 
little,  if  any,  stress  upon  the  strong  national 
spirit  which  makes  a  group  of  people  want  to 
develop  their  own  destiny,  with  a  government 
under  their  own  control.  We  have  considered, 
also,  the  patient,  plodding  work  of  the  diplo- 
matists and  jurists  who  for  three  hundred  years 
and  more  have  been  building  up,  step  by  step, 
what  we  know  as  international  law.  We  have 
also  outlined  some  of  the  international  agencies, 
such  as  the  Universal  Postal  Union,  which  have 
been  forced  upon  the  world  by  science  and  com- 
merce; and  we  have  reviewed  the  co-operative 

137 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

effort  which  the  great  war  compelled  the  Allied 
nations  to  make.  Having  discussed  these  vari- 
ous forces,  spiritual  and  material,  which  have 
tended  to  bring  distant  parts  of  the  world  close 
together,  we  have  then  considered  that  great 
force  which,  unrestrained,  has  kept  the  world 
apart — the  spirit  of  nationality.  And  we  have 
shown  that  that  spirit,  instead  of  weakening, 
has  been  growing  stronger  during  the  past  three 
hundred  years,  especially  during  the  past  cen- 
tury. We  have  indicated  that  the  real  prob- 
lem of  the  Peace  Conference  is  the  problem  of 
reconciling  the  desire  of  men  for  world  order 
with  their  desire  to  develop  their  own  govern- 
ments in  accordance  with  their  national  aspira- 
tions— the  old  conflict  between  order  and 
liberty.  Is  a  reconciliation  possible,  and,  if  so, 
how  and  when? 

Immanuel  Kant  was  born  in  1724,  a  German 
with  a  Scotch  grandfather.  He  published  his 
essay  on  "The  Natural  Principle  of  Political 
Order,  or  the  Idea  of  a  Universal  History,"  in 
1784,  the  essay  on  "The  Principle  of  Progress" 
in  1793,  and  "Eternal  Peace"  in  1795.1  Be- 


1  English  translations  of  all  these  essays  are  available.  In  the 
summary  given  below  we  have  used  the  translations  of  W.  Hastie 
and  M.  Campbell  Smith.  The  little  book  called  Eternal  Peace, 
published  by  The  World  Peace  Foundation,  with  an  introduction 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

cause  of  the  brief  rules  laid  down  in  the  last 
essay,  Kant  is  generally  classed  with  those  who 
proposed  a  plan  for  peace  immediately  realiz- 
able. This  is  incorrect.  Kant  made  no  such 
plan!  On  the  contrary,  he  made  a  profound 
analysis  of  the  reasons  why  external  peace 
was  not  attainable  without  long  training  and 
struggle.  But  he  did  see  clearly  the  distant  goal; 
and,  more  than  that,  he  marked  out  the  toilsome 
pathway  which  the  world  must  travel  before  it 
can  ever  reach  that  goal. 

It  may  seem  presumptuous  for  one  not  pro- 
fessionally trained  in  philosophical  exposition 
to  attempt  to  summarize  Kant,  about  whose 
writings  philosophical  teachers  have  so  widely 
differed.  After  all,  however,  the  important 
thing  is  not  so  much  whether  we  correctly  in- 
terpret Kant,  but  whether  Kant  enables  us  to- 
day to  see  our  own  problem  more  clearly.  Kant 
may  have  seen  much  more  than  we  can  see; 
and  a  more  skilful  interpreter  may  see  more 
to-day  in  Kant's  vision  than  we  can  see.  Let 


by  Edwin  D.  Mead,  uses  the  Hastie  translation.  Miss  Smith's 
Introduction  to  the  Essay  on  Perpetual  Peace  is  especially  com- 
plete and  valuable,  and  indicates  Kant's  relation  to  his  pred- 
ecessors in  political  theory,  especially  to  Rousseau  and  Locke. 
This  matter  of  the  relation  of  Kant  to  earlier  writers,  and  more 
particularly  to  Locke,  is  dealt  with  by  David  Jayne  Hill  in  his 
World  Organization  as  Affected  by  the  Nature  of  the  Modern  State, 
Chap.  IV,  pp.  95-103. 

139 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

that  be  assumed.  This,  however,  is  Kant's 
vision  as  we  see  it: 

Man,  unlike  the  other  animals,  is  endowed 
with  reason.  He  does  not,  however,  act  always 
in  accordance  with  his  reason.  Rather  are  his 
acts  fitful,  sometimes  guided  by  reason,  some- 
times by  instinct.  \\e  must  believe,  however, 
that  all  the  capacities  which  nature  has  im- 
planted in  any  creature  are  destined  to  unfold 
themselves  if  sufficient  time  be  allowed.  And 
this  must  be  true  of  man's  natural  capacity  to 
use  his  reason,  which  will  be  fully  developed  if 
we  allow  sufficient  time. 

But  man's  reason  develops  only  by  its  con- 
stant exercise;  by  failures  and  successes  it 
gradually  advances  from  one  stage  of  insight 
to  another.  No  man  within  the  short  span  of  life 
allotted  him  can  get  enough  experiments  with 
his  reason  to  enable  him  to  live  completely  in 
accordance  with  that  high  faculty.  To  live 
rationally,  however,  is  always  his  goal,  and  he 
may  hope  to  make  such  progress  that  his  chil- 
dren may  start  from  a  higher  level  than  that 
from  which  he  started.  Thus,  the  goal  which, 
for  lack  of  experience,  he  himself  can  never 
attain,  the  race  to  which  he  belongs  may  ulti- 
mately reach.  And  by  the  quality  of  his  own 
life  he  may  advance  the  species  toward  that 
ultimate  goal. 

140 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

It  seems  as  if  nature  had  intended,  not  that 
man  should  have  an  agreeable  life,  but  a  hard 
life.  Nature,  having  endowed  man  with  rea- 
son, left  him  without  the  natural  weapons  which 
are  part  of  the  equipment  of  the  animals  that 
act  by  instinct.  Man  must  invent  his  own  cov- 
ering, his  own  shelter,  his  own  means  of  security. 
He  must  struggle  from  the  greatest  crudeness 
of  life  to  his  highest  capabilities  and  to  internal 
perfection  in  his  habit  of  thought.  Moreover, 
he  must  continue  the  struggle  though  the  weary 
toil  be  for  the  sake  of  those  who  come  after  him, 
that  they  may  live  in  the  dwelling  upon  which 
he  and  his  long  line  of  forefathers  have  labored. 

The  two  great  human  qualities  which  drive 
the  individual  forward  in  this  self-culture  are 
the  social  instinct  and  the  self-assertive  instinct. 
Man  has  a  strong  inclination  to  associate  him- 
self with  his  fellows.  He  has,  however,  also  a 
strong  inclination  to  individualize  himself — to 
outstrip  his  fellows.  He  expects  others  to  resist 
him,  just  as  he  knows  that  he  is  inclined  to 
resist  others.  And  this  mutual  antagonism 
awakens  the  powers  of  man,  overcomes  his  pro- 
pensity to  indolence,  impels  him  through  desire 
for  honor,  or  power,  or  wealth,  to  strive  after 
rank  among  his  fellow-men.  His  desire  for  pos- 
session, his  envious  jealousy  and  vanity,  even 
his  love  of  power,  are  the  qualities  which  have 

141 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

lifted  him  from  the  simplicity  of  an  Arcadian 
shepherd  life.  Man  is  social  and  desires  con- 
cord, but  man  is  competitive  and  is  driven  to 
strife.  He  desires  to  live  in  peace  with  his  fel- 
lows, and  he  fights  with  his  fellows  in  order  that 
he  may  have  peace.2 

But  it  is  impossible  for  men  long  to  exist 
beside  one  another  in  wild,  lawless  freedom.  By 
the  very  evils  involved  in  lawless  liberty  man  is 
compelled  (not  necessarily  consciously)  to  pass 
from  a  state  of  lawlessness  and  to  enter  into  a 
civil  constitution  in  which  the  germs  of  his  hu- 

2  The  late  Prof.  William  Graham  Sumner,  of  Yale,  emphasizes 
the  importance  of  these  principles  of  competition  and  combina- 
tion in  the  process  of  social  evolution: 

"It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  ultimate  unit  is  a  group 
and  not  an  individual.  Every  individual  excludes  every  other 
in  the  competition  of  life  unless  they  can  by  combining  to- 
gether win  more  out  of  nature  by  joint  effort  than  the  sum  of 
what  they  could  win  separately.  This  combination  is  what 
makes  groups  and  brings  about  industrial  organization.  When 
a  man  and  woman  unite  in  the  most  elementary  group  known, 
they  do  it  for  economic  reasons,  because  they  can  carry  on  the 
struggle  for  existence  better  together  than  apart.  In  time 
this  turns  into  a  kin-group,  united  'by  blood.'  This  remains 
undivided  as  long  as  its  organization  gives  advantages,  but 
breaks  up  when  it  grows  too  big  for  the  existing  economic  sys- 
tem. As  soon  as  it  breaks,  the  fractions  begin  to  compete  with 
each  other.  If  by  greater  culture  a  higher  organization  be- 
comes possible,  two  groups  coalesce  by  intermarriage  or  con- 
quest, competition  gives  way  to  combination  again,  and  the 
bigger  unit  enters  into  competition  with  other  composite  units. 
Thus  at  all  stages  throughout  the  history  of  civilization  com- 
petition and  combination  forever  alternate  with  each  other." — 
War  and  Other  Essays,  pp.  7-8. 
142 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

manity  can  be  unfolded.  The  greatest  practical 
problem  for  the  human  race  is  therefore  the 
establishment  of  a  civil  society,  universally  ad- 
ministering right  in  accordance  with  law.  This 
requires  a  society  which  permits  the  greatest 
liberty,  and  to  that  extent  involves  antagonism 
of  its  members;  and  a  society  which  at  the 
same  time  determines  the  limits  of  individual 
liberty  in  order  that  it  may  co-exist  with  the 
liberty  of  others.  The  attainment  of  a  civil  con- 
stitution in  which  liberty  and  order  would  be 
perfectly  adjusted  is  the  highest  problem  pre- 
scribed by  nature  for  the  human  species.  It 
is  likewise  the  most  difficult  problem  and  will 
be  the  last  to  be  completely  solved  by  the  human 
race.  For,  as  a  rational  being,  man  desires  a 
law  which  shall  fix  the  bounds  of  his  freedom; 
as  a  selfish  animal,  he  disregards  that  law  or 
attempts  to  exempt  himself  from  it.  How  is  he 
to  be  governed?  His  ruler  may  be  one  man,  or  a 
group  of  men,  or  the  whole  body  of  the  State  of 
which  he  is  a  member,  but  whether  he  is  gov- 
erned by  an  autocracy,  or  an  aristocracy,  or  a 
democracy,  in  any  case  the  governor  is  human 
and,  like  himself,  is  governed  by  instinct  as  well 
as  by  reason.  The  highest  authority  must  be 
just  and  at  the  same  time  human.  Begin  and 
end  where  he  may,  therefore,  it  is  not  easy  to 
see  how  man  can  place  over  himself  any  supreme 

143 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

authority  that  will  be  entirely  just,  whether  that 
authority  be  one  person  or  the  whole  society  of 
the  State.  Until  man  himself  fully  exercises  his 
capacity  to  reason,  the  world-old  question  will 
continue  to  be  asked,  "Who  is  to  govern  the 
governor?" 

The  establishment  of  the  perfect  civil  consti- 
tution of  a  single  State  is  dependent  upon  the 
proper  regulation  of  the  external  relations  be- 
tween States,  and  without  the  solution  of  the 
external  problem  the  internal  problem  cannot 
be  solved.  It  is  obvious  that  a  State  cannot 
administer  right  in  accordance  with  law,  how- 
ever perfect  its  constitution,  if  it  is  interrupted 
by  the  acts  of  other  States.  States,  like  indi- 
viduals, are  both  social  and  unsocial.  They 
desire  relationships  with  their  neighbors  and 
they  desire  to  excel  and  surpass  their  neighbors. 
Through  wars,  and  the  never  relaxed  prepara- 
tions for  wars,  and  the  burden  of  debt  and  devas- 
tation left  by  war,  separate  States  will  be  driven 
into  unions.  And  in  this  process  nature  does 
not  and  cannot  hurry.  If  too  soon  all  the  States 
should  be  fused  into  a  single  State  by  the  force 
of  one  Power  that  had  overgrown  the  rest  and 
subjected  them  to  its  sway,  the  evils  of  despot- 
ism would  ensue,  the  laws  would  lose  their 
definiteness  and  fairness  of  application  as  the 
range  of  government  became  enlarged,  and 

144 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

despotism  would  end  in  anarchy.3  But  nature,  by 
differences  of  language  and  religion,  works  to 
keep  men  from  forming  the  Universal  State  too 
soon.  As  civilization  increases,  as  men  become 
more  and  more  alike  in  principles  and  get  more 
and  more  of  an  understanding  of  one  another 
and  of  their  differences,  the  final  Federation  of 
States  will  be  developed. 

Kant  clearly  recognizes  that  he  is  describing 
an  ideal  at  present  unattainable,  but  still  an 
ideal  toward  which  all  men  guided  by  reason 

3  A  century  before  Kant  wrote  William  Penn  clearly  perceived 
the  dangers  of  a  universal  State.     In  discussing  the  advantages 
which  would  come  from  the  application  of  his  plan  for  universal 
peace,  he  made  the  following  observation  on  the  necessity  of 
granting  a  certain  degree  of  liberty  and  independence  to   the 
national  States  if  the  whole  benefit  of  peace  was  to  be  derived: 
"This  leads  to  the  Benefit  of  a  Universal  Monarchy,  with- 
out the  Inconveniences  that  attend  it :  For  when  the  whole  was 
one  Empire,  tho'  these  Advantages  were  enjoyed,  yet  the  several 
Provinces,  that  now  make  the  Kingdoms  and  States  of  Europe, 
were  under  some  Hardship  from  the  great  Sums  of  Money 
remitted  to  the  Imperial  Seat,  and  the  Ambition  and  Avarice 
of  their  several  Pro-consuls  and  Governours,  and  the  great 
Taxes  they  paid  to  the  Numerous  Legions  of  Soldiers,  that  they 
maintained  for  their  own  Subjection,  who  were  not  wont  to 
entertain  that  Concern  for  them  (being  uncertainly  there,  and 
having  their  Fortunes  to  make)  which  their  respective  and 
proper  Sovereigns  have  always  shown  for  them.     So  that  to 
be  Ruled  by  Native  Princes  or  States,  with  the  Advantage  of 
that  Peace  and  Security  that  can  only  render  an  Universal 
Monarchy  Desirable,  is  peculiar  to  our  Proposal,  and  for  that 
Reason  it  is  to  be  preferred." — William  Penn,  An  Essay  Towards 
the  Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe,  p.  16. 
145 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

must  constantly  strive.  This  goal  will  not  be 
reached  in  a  precipitate  manner,  but  it  must 
be  unceasingly  approached  as  the  favor  of  cir- 
cumstances will  allow.  The  internal  government 
of  States  and  the  relations  of  States  one  to  an- 
other are  part  of  the  same  problem.  Kant's 
conditions  of  permanent  peace,  therefore,  are: 

(1)  Each  State  shall  have  a  republican  constitu- 
tion.   This  does  not  have  reference  to  the  form 
of  government.    It  may  be  a  monarchy  or  a 
democracy;  but  whatever  the  form,  law  must 
rule  above  force.    The  constitution  must  be  a 
representative  one,  based  on  the  freedom  and 
equality  of  the  members  of  the  State  and  their 
mutual  dependence  on  a  common  legislature. 

(2)  The  Law  of  Nations  shall  be  founded  on  a 
federation  of  free  States.    It  is  to  this  end  that 
mankind  is  advancing.   To  make  many  nations 
into  one  single  State  is  not  only  impracticable, 
but  undesirable.    It  might  well  lead  to  despot- 
ism and  it  would  ignore  the  necessity  of  devel- 
oping the  several  national  traits. 

(3)  There  shall  be  universal  hospitality,  which 
means  a  recognition  of  the  right  of  a  stranger, 
if  he  conducts  himself  peacefully,  to  go  to  a 
foreign  State  without  being  dealt  with  in  a 
hostile  way.4 

4  Immanuel  Kant,   Essay  on  Perpetual  Peace.     M.    Campbell 
Smith's  translation,  pp.  117  ff. 

146 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

And  the  history  of  the  race  seems  to  Kant  to 
indicate  a  movement  toward  this  perfect  con- 
stitution, although  the  small  orbit  through 
which  the  human  race  has  as  yet  passed  gives 
us  insufficient  data  to  measure  the  orbit  through 
which  it  is  to  travel.  There  are,  however,  faint 
traces  of  the  approach  of  the  goal.  The  close 
relationship  of  States  is  now  such  (this,  mark 
you,  was  written  in  1784!)  that  no  State  can 
slacken  in  its  internal  development  without 
lessening  its  power  and  influence  with  the  rest. 
States  must  govern  themselves  better  inter- 
nally or  drop  out.  As  the  interference  with  civil 
liberty  causes  damage  to  industry  and  com- 
merce, and  thereby  weakens  the  external  power 
of  the  State,  the  tendency  is  to  remove  all  re- 
strictions on  personal  liberty.  War  itself  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  hazardous  and  objec- 
tionable because  of  its  uncertainties  and  the 
ever-increasing  burdens  which  it  leaves  behind. 
Moreover,  every  political  disturbance  of  any 
State  of  Europe — because  of  the  interlocking  of 
the  States  through  the  connections  of  trade — 
exerts  upon  all  the  States  an  influence  which 
forces  them  by  their  common  danger,  though 
without  lawful  authority,  to  offer  themselves  as 
mediators  in  the  troubles  of  any  State.  The 
States  are  thus  beginning  to  arrange  for  a  great 
official  political  body  such  as  the  world  has 

147 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

never  yet  seen.  That  body  exists  now  only  in 
rough  outlines,  but  a  feeling  begins  to  stir  the 
various  members,  each  of  which  has  a  common 
and  steadily  increasing  interest  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  whole. 

Kant's  political  writings  were  published  in 
the  decade  between  1784  and  1795.  It  would 
have  been  difficult  to  have  drawn  a  better 
picture  of  the  succeeding  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  years  than  he  has  drawn. 

Kant  said  that  the  increasing  contacts  of  the 
world  to  which  men  would  be  impelled  by  trade 
and  commerce  would  compel  them  to  live  to- 
gether more  rationally.  It  has  so  happened; 
one  international  union  after  another  has  been 
formed  by  international  treaty  in  order  to  assist 
commerce. 

Kant  said  the  several  States  would  go  on 
fighting  and  preparing  for  war,  learning  only 
by  experiment  to  live  more  rationally.  This 
prediction,  too,  has  been  verified.  The  nine- 
teenth century  was  a  century  of  alternate  peace 
and  war,  and  of  never  relaxed  preparation  for 
war.  And,  finally,  the  world  war  came,  and  all 
of  the  developments  of  science  were  devoted  for 
four  years  and  a  half  to  purposes  of  destruction. 
The  result  has  been  more  appalling  than  any 
one  could  have  conceived.  Now,  as  never  be- 

148 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

fore,  men  are  being  impelled  by  their  experience 
to  think  of  a  new  set  of  rules  for  the  Society 
of  States.  Nature  has  given  them  a  fresh  and 
more  insistent  command,  "Live  rationally  or 
perish !" 

Kant  said  that  no  single  generation  would  get 
enough  experience  to  attain  the  goal,  but  that 
the  race  would  drive  on,  each  generation  per- 
haps starting  its  children  from  a  little  higher 
level  than  that  from  which  it  had  started.  In 
the  history  of  a  race  a  century  is  a  short  time; 
yet  the  last  century  has  been  a  period  of  great 
change.  Can  any  one  question  that  the  pur- 
poses of  the  people  of  the  world  and  of  their 
representatives  at  the  Paris  conference  to-day 
are  on  a  much  higher  level  than  at  the  Congress 
of  Vienna  one  hundred  years  ago? 

It  is  idle  to  class  Kant  with  those  who  would 
write  some  words  on  parchment  and  bring 
eternal  peace.  All  of  his  essays  negative  such  a 
thought.  Man  cannot  get  something  for  noth- 
ing. By  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  by  the  stretching 
of  his  sinews,  by  the  subdual  of  his  passions,  by 
the  conquering  of  his  prejudices,  by  the  obedi- 
ence to  his  reason,  he  shall  reach  his  goal.  No, 
he  shall  not  reach  it!  But  he  may  climb  the  hill 
and  see  the  promised  land,  and  his  children's 
children  may  go  into  it  a  little  sooner  because 
of  his  conduct.  Let  him  who  is  able  produce  a 

11  149 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

nobler  vision  of  either  the  duty  or  the  destiny 
of  the  human  race ! 6 

To-day,  "the  favor  of  circumstances"  gives 
mankind  the  opportunity  to  approach  a  little 
nearer  the  goal.  The  representatives  of  twenty- 
four  States  are  sitting  at  the  Peace  Conference. 
The  highly  developed  States  are  there;  the  back- 
ward States  "are  there.  The  men  at  the  peace 
table,  and  the  peoples  they  represent,  will  differ 
greatly  in  their  opinions  as  to  what  can  be  ac- 
complished. Those  differences  of  opinion  will 
turn  largely  on  the  emphasis  that  is  put  upon 

6  David  Jayne  Hill,  in  his  Rebuilding  of  Europe,  recognizes  the 
significance  of  Kant's  efforts  to  provide  for  a  reconciliation  of 
peace  with  the  existence  of  the  national  State.  See  especially 
pp.  43  ff.  The  following  citation  is  particularly  illuminating: 

"Such  a  conception  appears  at  first  sight  to  be  not  only 
cosmopolitan,  but  anti-national.  Cosmopolitan  it  undoubtedly 
is,  and  therein  lies  the  possibility  of  ultimately  realizing  the 
idea  of  a  true  society  of  States;  but  it  is  not  anti-national  in 
the  sense  of  denying  the  value  and  necessity  of  the  nation. 
What  it  aims  at  is  the  extension  of  local  order  until  it  becomes 
general  order,  by  so  conceiving  the  State  as  to  allow  of  its  co- 
operation with  other  States,  either  by  federation,  or  some 
other  correlation,  with  the  purpose  of  insuring  universal  har- 
mony and,  therefore,  permanent  peace. 

But  in  order  to  reach  this  result  Kant  holds  that  the  'holy 
and  inviolable  law  of  reason'  must  triumph  over  the  impulses 
of  the  natural  man  not  by  military  force,  for  freedom  and 
violence  are  incompatible,  but  by  the  gradual  evolution  of 
mankind  through  the  action  of  rational  intelligence. 

Here  is  presented,  no  doubt,  a  conception  of  the  State 
which  renders  internationalism  possible  without  the  destruction 
of  nationalism." — David  Jayne  Hill,  The  Rebuilding  of  Europe, 
pp.  44-45. 

150 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

liberty  or  order.    There  will  have  to  be  great 
compromises. 

The  instinct  of  those  who  shrink  from  any 
widening  of  the  areas  of  governmental  responsi- 
bility and  administration  is  a  sound  instinct; 
it  is  a  recognition  of  the  desire  of  peoples  for 
liberty,  for  the  right,  untrammeled,  to  work  out 
their  own  destiny  in  accordance  with  their  own 
national  traits  and  aspirations.  It  is  also  a 
recognition  of  their  own  limitations  and  the 
limitations  of  their  leaders.  Viscount  Bryce  put 
this  strikingly  in  his  presidential  address  before 
the  British  Academy  on  June  30,  1915: 

Sometimes  one  feels  as  if  modern  States  were  grow- 
ing too  huge  for  the  men  to  whom  their  fortunes  are 
committed.  Mankind  increases  in  volume,  and  in 
accumulated  knowledge,  and  in  a  comprehension  of 
the  forces  of  nature;  but  the  intellects  of  individual 
men  do  not  grow.  The  power  of  grasping  and  judg- 
ing in  their  entirety  the  far  greater  mass  of  facts  to  be 
dealt  with,  the  far  more  abundant  resources  at  com- 
mand, the  far  vaster  issues  involving  the  weal  or  woe 
of  masses  of  men — this  power  fails  to  follow.  The 
disproportion  between  the  individual  ruling  men, 
with  their  personal  prejudices  and  proclivities,  their 
selfish  interests  and  their  vanities,  and  the  immeas- 
urable consequences  which  follow  their  individual 
volitions,  becomes  more  striking  and  more  tragic. 

As  the  stage  expands,  the  figures  shrink.  There  were 

151 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

some  advantages  in  the  small  city-states  of  antiquity. 
A  single  city  might  decline  or  perish,  but  the  nation 
remained;  and  another  city  blossomed  forth  to  re- 
place that  which  had  withered  away.  But  now 
enormous  nations  are  concentrated  under  one  gov- 
ernment and  its  disasters  affect  the  whole.  A  great 
modern  state  is  like  a  gigantic  vessel  built  without 
any  water-tight  compartments,  which,  if  it  be  un- 
skilfully steered,  may  perish  when  it  strikes  a  single 
rock. 

How  ignorant  modern  peoples,  with  all  the  abun- 
dant means  of  information  at  their  disposal,  may 
nevertheless  remain  of  one  another's  character  and 
purposes!  Each  of  the  nations  now  at  war  has  evi- 
dently had  a  false  notion  of  its  adversaries  and  has 
been  thereby  misled.  It  has  not  known  their  inner 
thoughts,  it  has  misread  their  policy.  It  was  said  in 
the  days  of  the  American  Civil  War  that  the  miscon- 
ception by  the  Southern  States  of  the  Northern 
States,  and  their  belief  that  the  North  cared  for 
nothing  but  the  dollar,  was  the  real  cause  why  their 
differences  were  not  peaceably  settled,  and  yet  they 
were  both  members  of  the  same  Republic  and  spoke 
the  same  language.6 

On  the  other  hand,  the  instinct  of  those  who 
desire  some  higher  authority  which  will  prevent 
war  is  also  a  sound  instinct.  It  is  the  desire  of 
men  for  world  order,  for  some  practical  method 

8  James  Bryce,  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime,  Chap.  V, 
pp.  98-99. 

152 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

of  preventing  another  world  cataclysm.  As  an 
indication  that  a  well-poised  mind  can  see  both 
sides  of  the  questionr  we  quote  again  from  Vis- 
count Bryce — this  time  from  his  article  on  a 
League  of  Nations: 

If  we  do  not  try  to  make  an  end  of  war,  war  will 
make  an  end  of  us.  In  every  free  country  the  best 
minds  must  now  address  themselves  to  the  means  of 
deterring  aggressive  Governments  from  war  and  en- 
throning Public  Right  as  the  supreme  Power  in 
international  affairs.  With  goodwill,  with  an  un- 
selfish devotion  to  the  highest  and  most  permanent 
interests  of  humanity,  nothing  is  impossible. 

If  we  let  slip  this  opportunity  for  the  provision  of 
machinery  by  which  the  risk  of  future  wars  may  be 
averted  or  reduced,  another  such  opportunity  may 
never  present  itself.  If  things  are  not  made  better 
after  this  war  the  prospect  will  be  darker  than  ever. 
Darker  because  the  condition  of  the  world  will  have 
grown  so  much  worse  that  the  recurrence  of  like 
calamities  will  have  been  recognized  as  a  thing  to  be 
expected  and  the  causes  of  those  calamities  as  beyond 
all  human  cure.  Rather  let  us  strive  that  all  the  suf- 
fering this  war  has  brought,  and  all  the  sacrifices 
of  heroic  lives  it  has  witnessed,  shall  not  have  been 
in  vain.7 

The  reconciliation  of  those  two  ideals — the 
ideal  of  liberty  and  the  ideal  of  order — is  the 

7  James  Bryce,  Essays  and  Addresses  in  Wartime,  Chap.  V. 
p.  183. 

153 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

problem  of  the  statesmen  at  the  Peace  Confer- 
ence. With  the  whole  world  as  a  stage,  states- 
men are  seeking  some  formula  that  will  bring 
about  ordered  liberty.  And  in  their  quest  they 
must  deal  with  human  nature  as  it  is.  They 
must  consider  our  shortcomings  as  well  as  our 
capabilities,  our  capabilities  as  well  as  our  short- 
comings. Taking  the  human  race  as  it  is,  con- 
sidering the  advance  that  it  has  made  in  the 
last  three  hundred  years  and  the  .capabilities  of 
advance  which  we  believe  it  has,  what  practical 
steps  can  we  now  take  to  advance  the  race  a 
little  toward  its  goal?  What -new  rules  for  the 
Society  of  States,  for  the  new  Society  of  Na- 
tional States,  is  the  world  ready  to  make,  and, 
having  made,  observe? 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

IMMANUEL  KANT,  Works  as  cited  in  the  text,  and 
particularly  Miss  M.  Campbell  Smith's  intro- 
duction to  the  Essay  on  Perpetual  Peace. 

FREDERICK  PAULSEN,  Immanuel  Kant. 

THOMAS  HILL  GREEN,  Works,  edited  by  R.  H. 
Nettleship,  especially  Lectures  on  the  Principles 
of  Political  Obligation,  Vol.  II,  p.  335. 

DAVID  JAYNE  HILL,  The  Rebuilding  of  Europe, 
Chapter  II. 

JOSIAH  ROYCE,  The  Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy, 
Lecture  IV. 

154 


ORDER  AND  INDEPENDENCE 

D.   G.   RITCHIE,   Studies   in   Political   and    Social 

Ethics. 
BERNARD  BOSANQUET,  The  Philosophical  Theory  of 

the  State. 


IX 


THE  DRAFT  OF  COVENANT  SUBMITTED  TO  THE 
CONFERENCE,  FEBRUARY  14,  1919 

riiHE  proposed  Covenant  submitted  by  a 
•••  committee  to  the  Peace  Conference  on  Feb- 
ruary 14,  1919,  has  been  subjected  to  an  ad- 
verse criticism  that  has  been  extraordinarily 
varied.  Owing  perhaps  to  the  use  of  the  word 
"Constitution"  in  the  preamble  there  has  been  a 
too  hasty  assumption  that  the  Covenant  creates 
a  World-State.  This  assumption  is  not  unnatural 
In  America,  where  the  word  "Constitution"  is 
associated  with  the  creation  of  a  State.  A  read- 
ing of  the  articles,  however,  should  make  clear 
that  no  World-State  is  established.  The  League 
has  no  power  to  levy  and  expend  taxes;  in  fact, 
the  only  direct  reference  to  expenses  is  con- 
tained in  Article  V,  which  provides  that  the 
expenses  of  the  Secretariat  shall  be  borne  by 
the  member-States  in  accordance  with  the  ap- 
portionment of  the  expenses  of  the  International 
Bureau  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union.1  Then 

1  See  p.  92-93  supra,  for  the  method  of  apportioning  the  ex- 
penses of  this  Bureau. 

156 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY   14,   1919 

there  is  the  provision  in  Article  XVI  which 
contemplates  that  the  member-States  will  dis- 
tribute the  financial  and  economic  loss  which 
may  result  from  a  boycott  or  co-operative  mili- 
tary or  naval  effort;  but  this  provision  of  course 
places  no  revenue  in  the  control  of  a  World- 
State.  Nor  has  the  League  any  power  to  organ- 
ize and  command  armies — not  even  the  power 
to  make  requisitions  upon  the  member-States 
for  quotas  of  men.  An  organization  which  has 
no  command  of  either  the  purse  or  the  sword  can 
hardly  be  called  a  State  in  any  proper  sense  of 
the  word.  The  document  is  in  essence  a  Cove- 
nant or  treaty  entered  into  by  independent  States. 
By  entering  into  the  Covenant  the  States  are 
surrendering  their  right  of  independent  action 
only  to  the  very  limited  extent  that  the  Cove- 
nant prescribes.  In  this  respect  it  is  like  many 
other  treaties  made  by  civilized  States  which 
limit  their  right  of  action.2  But  this  is  far  dif- 
ferent from  surrendering  any  of  the  organs  of 
their  separate  governments  to  a  Super-State,  as 
was  the  case  when  our  own  Federal  Government 
was  founded.  It  would  be  better,  therefore, 
from  the  American  point  of  view,  if  the  word 


2  See  Sir  Frederick  Pollock  on  "  Sovereignty  and  the  League  of 
Nations,"  in  the  Fortnightly  Review,  December,  1918,  Vol.  CX, 
pp.  813-818,  and  reprinted  in  the  Living  Age,  January  11,  1918, 
Vol.  CCC,  pp.  68  to  72. 

157 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

"Constitution"  had  been  omitted.  The  docu- 
ment is  a  joint  international  treaty,  far  wider 
in  its  scope  than  any  we  have  heretofore  made, 
but  of  the  type  of  convention  to  which  the  United 
States  from  time  to  tune  has  become  a  party.3 

But  whatever  the  name  that  may  be  given 
to  the  document  in  the  preamble,  obviously  we 
must  look  to  the  articles  themselves  for  the 
meaning,  with  such  help  as  we  may  secure 
from  the  public  explanations  made  by  the 
framers  of  the  document  at  the  time  of  its 
submission  to  the  Plenary  Peace  Conference. 

In  the  main  the  criticisms  of  the  Covenant 
have  been  of  three  general  classes: 

(1) — That  it  is  not  satisfactorily  expressed. 

To  this  criticism  it  can  be  answered  that  the 
Peace  Conference,  to  whom  the  draft  has  been 
reported,  must  be  presumed  to  be  willing  and 
anxious  to  have  any  looseness  of  expression 
cured  and  that  specific  criticisms  of  method  of 
expression  should  be  submitted  to  the  Confer- 
ence. 

M.  Bourgeois,  at  the  plenary  sitting  of  the 
Peace  Conference  on  February  14th,  explained 


3  See  John  Bassett  Moore's  Principles  of  American  Diplomacy, 
pp.  433-434,  for  a  reference  to  joint  international  treaties 
entered  into  by  the  United  States  since  October  22,  1864,  such 
treaties  representing  a  break  from  the  former  policy  of  making 
only  separate  or  independent  agreements  with  other  States. 

158 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

very  frankly  the  spirit  in  which  the  Committee 
had  worked  and  the  desire  of  all  that  the 
draft  of  the  Covenant  should  be  tested  in  the 
court  of  the  world's  public  opinion: 

Lord  Robert  Cecil  has  said  we  now  present  to  the 
Conference  and  to  the  world  the  result  of  our  work, 
but  we  do  not  present  it  as  something  which  is  final, 
but  only  as  the  result  of  an  honest  effort  to  be  dis- 
cussed and  to  be  examined  not  only  by  this  Con- 
ference, but  by  the  public  opinion  of  the  world. 

(2) — That  the  Covenant  does  not  create  a 
strong  enough  League,  or,  as  it  has  been  ex- 
pressed, that  "it  has  no  teeth"  with  which  to 
accomplish  its  object. 

To  the  critics  who  desire  a  Covenant  that 
gives  greater  power  to  the  League  the  answer 
seems  fairly  plain.  This  proposal  is  the  result 
of  the  deliberations  of  representatives  of  many 
States,  as  jealous  of  their  national  powers 
and  as  suspicious  of  encroachment  upon  them 
as  the  American  people  are.  The  spirit  of  na- 
tionality is  not  confined  to  any  single  national 
State.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  European 
Powers  are  willing  to  go  much  farther  than  this 
proposal  goes.  All  advances  in  international 
co-operation  come  slowly — those  parchment 
agreements  that  go  beyond  the  general  desires 
of  the  people  who  are  expected  to  observe  them 

159 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

may  do  much  more  harm  than  good.  And  it 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  any  proposal  which, 
like  the  present,  calls  for  frequent  conferences 
of  the  States  to  aid  peace  (even  if  it  does  noth- 
ing else)  is  better  than  no  covenant  at  all. 
There  are  some  who  want  an  international 
sheriff  directed  by  an  international  executive. 
They  should  remember  that  an  international 
army  strong  enough  to  preserve  peace  would 
also  be  strong  enough  to  impose  injustice.  Let 
them  not  forget  that  the  world  has  not  yet 
answered  the  old  question,  "Who  is  to  govern 
the  governors?'* 

(3) — That  the  Covenant  goes  too  far  and  un- 
duly interferes  with  the  powers  of  the  separate 
States;  more  particularly,  that  it  unduly  in- 
terferes with  the  independence  of  the  United 
States. 

In  this  article  we  shall  deal  with  the  Covenant 
mainly  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  third  class 
of  criticisms  (which  have  been  by  far  the  most 
frequent),  and  in  analyzing  the  Covenant  from 
that  point  of  view  we  shall  search  for  its  pur- 
poses as  expressed  in  the  language  of  the  Cov- 
enant and  the  explanations  made  by  certain 
of  the  conferees  when  the  Covenant  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  Peace  Conference. 

Let  us  examine  the  Covenant  under  three 
headings: 

160 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

First:  The  organization  of  international  re- 
lations during  peace; 

Second :  The  method  of  handling  disputes  be- 
tween States; 

Third:  The  effect  of  the  Covenant  upon  the 
traditional  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States. 

FIRST:  THE  ORGANIZATION  OP  INTERNA- 
TIONAL RELATIONS  DURING  PEACE: 

(a)  The  proposed  Covenant  attempts  to  abol- 
ish secrecy  in  international  relations,  particu- 
larly in  that  it  requires  member-States  to  agree 
upon 

(1)  a  full  and  frank  interchange  of  informa- 

tion as  to  armaments  (Article  VIII) ; 

(2)  the  registration  with  the  Secretary-Gen- 

eral of  every  treaty  or  international 
engagement,  the  abrogation  of  all  in- 
ternational obligations  inconsistent 
with  the  Covenant,  and  the  refraining 
from  entering  into  any  new  engage- 
ments inconsistent  with  the  terms  of 
the  Covenant  (Articles  XXIII  and 
XXV). 

There  can  hardly  be  doubt  that  these  provi- 
sions are  important — and,  in  substance,  sound. 
The  substitution  of  frankness  for  reserve  is  an 
essential  of  the  diplomacy  of  democracies. 

161 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

(b)  The  proposed  Covenant  provides  for  con- 
stant common  counsel  on  certain  specified  inter- 
national matters;  in  this  respect  it  uses  the 
experience  of  general  international  conferences 
like  The  Hague,  and  especially  the  experience 
gained  by  the  Inter-Allied  organizations  during 
the  war.  It  effects  this  common .  counsel 
through : 

(1)  a  Body  of  Delegates,  meeting  at  stated 

intervals,  and  from  time  to  time  as 
occasion  may  require,  each  of  the  mem- 
ber-States to  have  one  vote  and  not 
more  than  three  representatives  (Ar- 
ticles I  and  II),  it  being  evident  from 
Article  VII  that  dominions  and  col- 
onies, provided  they  are  self-governing 
countries,  are  to  be  admitted  as  mem- 
ber-States; 

(2)  an  Executive  Council,  to  meet  at  least 

once  a  year,  to  consist  of  representa- 
tives from  the  five  so-called  great 
Powers  (including,  of  course,  the  Uni- 
ted States),  and  representatives  of  four 
other  States,  selection  of  such  four 
States  to  be  made  by  the  Body  of  Dele- 
gates (Articles  I  and  III); 

(3)  a   permanent   Secretariat   to   be   estab- 

lished at  the  seat  of  the  League,  the 
head  of  the  Secretariat  to  be  a  Secre-. 

162 


THE   DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

tary-General,  chosen  by  the  Executive 
Council  (Articles  I  and  V) ; 

(4)  a  permanent  Commission  to  advise  on 

armaments  and  military  and  naval 
questions  generally  (Article  IX); 

(5)  a  Commission  to  receive  and  examine 

annual  reports  on  the  administration 
of  those  colonies  which,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  war,  have  ceased  to  be 
under  the  States  which  formerly  gov- 
erned them  and  have  been  handed  over 
in  trust  to  other  States  as  mandatories 
(Article  XIX); 

(6)  a  permanent  Bureau  of   Labor  (Article 

XX); 

and,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing  permanent 
official  bodies: 

(7)  international  Dureaus  already  established, 

or  later  constituted,  are  to  be  placed 
under  the  control  of  the  League  (Ar- 
ticle XXII). 

In  much  of  the  public  discussion  in  the  United 
States  since  the  proposed  Covenant  was  pub- 
lished it  has  been  assumed  that  the  important 
matters  to  be  committed  to  the  bodies  referred 
to  above  may  be  disposed  of  by  those  bodies 
absolutely  as  they  will.  That  gives  neither  a 
fair  reading  of  the  words  of  the  Covenant  nor 
a  correct  interpretation  of  the  expressed  pur- 

163 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

poses  of  the  Commission  which  prepared  the 
draft  for  the  Peace  Conference. 

With  reference  to  armament  it  is  quite  clear 
that  the  Executive  Council  is  to  make  a  program 
"for  the  consideration  and  action"  of  the  sev- 
eral governments.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Covenant  which  indicates  that  any  government 
gives  up  any  control  of  its  armament  program 
until  it  has  "adopted"  the  program  of  the 
Executive  Council.  After  such  adoption,  the 
program  shall  not  be  exceeded  without  per- 
mission of  the  Executive  Council  (Article  VIII). 
Surely,  in  any  League  that  aims  at  peace  the 
Covenant  could  hardly  do  less  than  bring  to- 
gether representatives  of  the  several  member- 
States  to  talk  about  their  armaments  and  reach 
an  agreement  for  reduction,  if  possible.  If  it 
be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  to  assent  to  the  Covenant  because  of 
the  armament  clauses,  then  we  have  been  vio- 
lating the  Constitution  for  one  hundred  years, 
during  which  time  we  have  bound  ourselves 
by  an  agreement  with  Great  Britain  to  limit 
the  armament  on  the  Great  Lakes.4  When 
President  Monroe  communicated  this  treaty  to 
the  Senate,  he  stated  that  it  was  "in  order  to 

4  John  Bassett  Moore,  A  Digest  of  International  Law,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  691  to  698. 

164 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,  1919 

avoid  collision  and  save  expense."  Has  it  not 
accomplished  both  purposes? 

The  Commission  which  deals  with  colonial 
administration  has  power  "to  receive  and  ex- 
amine" annual  reports  and  to  "assist"  the 
League  in  assuring  the  observance  of  the  terms 
of  mandates  (Article  XIX).  As  to  the  man- 
dates themselves,  there  is  nothing  that  requires 
any  State  to  be  a  mandatory  against  its  will, 
and  the  terms  under  which  it  receives  the  man- 
date from  the  League  would  be  a  subject  of 
treaty  requiring  its  assent.  If  any  State  chooses 
to  take  a  mandate  under  terms  and  conditions 
which  make  it  administer  the  colony  in  trust, 
and  make  annual  reports  thereon,  can  any  pos- 
sible objection  be  raised? 

The  permanent  Labor  Bureau  has  no  power 
of  legislation.  It,  again,  is  a  body  designed  to 
enable  the  member-States  to  carry  out  their 
Covenant  to  "endeavor  to  secure  and  main- 
tain fair  and  humane  conditions  of  labor" 
(Article  XX);  surely,  a  proper  endeavor  for 
any  State!  There  is  nothing  in  the  Covenant 
which  indicates  that  any  member-State  is 
bound  by  any  action  of  the  Labor  Bureau  until 
its  own  proper  governmental  bodies  adopt  the 
recommendations. 

International  bureaus,  such  as  the  Postal 
Union,  come  under  the  control  of  the  League 

12  165 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

only  with  the  consent  of  all  the  parties  to  the 
treaty  which  established  such  bureaus  (Article 
XXII).  The  wisdom  of  beginning  to  place 
these  international  bureaus  upon  a  more  digni- 
fied basis,  where  comparative  studies  of  their 
successes  and  failures  can  be  readily  made, 
would  seem  to  be  obvious. 

Some  critics  have  assumed  that  the  Body  of 
Delegates  and  Executive  Council  can  always 
act  by  a  majority  vote,  and  that  their  majority 
action  upon  all  questions  will  be  binding  upon 
all  member-States.  The  Body  of  Delegates  and 
Executive  Council  can  act  by  a  majority  of 
States  represented  at  the  meeting  on  "matters 
of  procedure  at  meetings,"  including  the  ap- 
pointment of  committees  (Article  IV).  Admis- 
sion to  the  League  of  Nations  of  new  members 
is  permitted  upon  the  assent  of  two-thirds  of 
the  States  represented  in  the  Body  of  Dele- 
gates (Article  VII);  and  amendment  of  the 
Covenant  is  permitted  upon  ratification  by  three- 
fourths  of  the  States  represented  in  the  Body 
of  Delegates,  including  all  the  States  represented 
on  the  Executive  Council  (Article  XXVI).  There 
are  also  special  provisions  in  respect  of  settling 
disputes  which  we  will  refer  to  below.  Other 
than  these  exceptions,  what  is  there  in  the  docu- 
ment which  leads  critics  to  think  that  action  is  to 
be  other  than  unanimous? 

166 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  speeches  of  all  the 
Peace  Conferees  with  reference  to  the  Covenant 
were  not  made  available  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  Much  misapprehension  might  have 
been  avoided  by  reading  the  following  words 
of  Lord  Robert  Cecil,  spoken  at  the  Peace 
Conference  immediately  after  President  Wil- 
son's exposition  of  the  Covenant: 

This  is  the  great  principle  in  all  action,  whether 
of  the  Executive  Council,  or  of  the  body  of  delegates, 
except  in  very  special  cases  and  for  very  special 
reasons,  which  are  set  out  in  the  Covenant — that 
all  action  must  be  unanimously  agreed  to  hi  accord- 
ance with  the  general  rule  that  governs  international 
relations.  That  that  will,  to  some  extent,  in  ap- 
pearance, at  any  rate,  militate  against  the  rapidity 
of  action  of  the  organs  of  the  League  is  undoubted, 
but,  in  my  judgment,  that  defect  is  far  more  than 
compensated  by  the  confidence  that  it  will  inspire 
that  no  nation,  whether  small  or  great,  need  fear 
oppression  from  the  organs  of  the  League. 

It  would  be  well  to  provide  expressly  in  the 
Covenant  the  general  rule  to  which  Lord  Rob- 
ert Cecil  refers.5  This  matter  should  be  made 
certain  beyond  peradventure,  because  such  per- 

6  The  general  rule  that  action  must  be  unanimous  at  inter- 
national conferences  is  referred  to  in  James  B.  Scott's  Reports  to 
the  Hague  Conference,  p.  19.  As  M.  Bourgeois  expressed  it: 
"We  are  here  to  unite,  not  to  be  counted." 

167 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

manent  bodies  can  be  instruments  of  peace 
only  if  they  avoid  coercion.  As  former  Secre- 
tary Root  so  well  stated  in  his  letter  of  in- 
structions to  the  delegates  to  the  Second  Hague 
Conference: 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  object  of 
the  Conference  is  agreement,  and  not  compulsion. 
If  such  conferences  are  to  be  made  occasions  for 
trying  to  force  nations  into  positions  which  they 
consider  against  their  interests,  the  Powers  cannot 
be  expected  to  send  representatives  to  them. 

These  various  arrangements  for  international 
counsel  to  preserve  peace  and  to  avoid  the 
misunderstanding  which  might  lead  to  war, 
are,  then,  simply  an  acceptance  of  the  principle 
of  the  Hague  Conferences  and  a  carrying  on  of 
the  method  of  the  Inter-Allied  organizations 
which  operated  during  the  war. 

SECOND:  THE  METHOD  OF  HANDLING  DIS- 
PUTES BETWEEN  STATES. 

The  proposed  Covenant  deals  also  with  the 
method  of  handling  disputes  after  they  have 
arisen  between  States,  and  it  is  necessary  to 
examine  the  limitations  of  freedom  which  in 
this  respect  are  imposed  upon  the  member  - 

168 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,  1919 

States.  The  clauses  which  deal  with  this  sub- 
ject are  contained  in  Articles  XII  to  XVII,  in- 
clusive. A  reading  of  all  these  clauses  should 
make  clear 

(a)  that  all  member-States  accept  the  prin- 

ciple that  disputes  shall  be  thoroughly 
talked  over  before  action  is  taken,  and 
that  trial  by  battle  as  a  means  of  test- 
ing justice  will  be  retarded  as  far  as 
possible; 

(b)  that  no  member-State  will  go  to  war  if 

the  civilized  world  has  unanimously 
expressed  an  opinion  against  the  justice 
of  its  cause; 

(c)  that  all  member-States  will  subject  to  a 

boycott  any  State  that  resorts  to  war 
without  first  submitting  its  case  to  the 
opinion  of  the  civilized  world. 
Many  critics  have  discussed  the  Covenant 
as  though  a  majority  vote  of  the  Body  of  Dele- 
gates, or  of  the  Executive  Council,  could  put 
the  United  States  into  a  war,  or  forbid  the 
United  States  going  to  war,  or  force  the  United 
States  to  boycott  one  or  more  States  of  the 
world.    What  does  the  Covenant  say? 

By  Article  XII  it  is  agreed  that  should  dis- 
putes arise  between  States  which  cannot  be 
adjusted  they  will  not  go  to  war  without  sub- 

169 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

milling  Ihe  queslion  involved  eilher  to  arbi- 
tration or  inquiry  by  the  Executive  Council 
and  until  three  months  after  the  award  or 
recommendation,  and  that  they  will  not  then 
resort  to  war  against  a  member-Stale  which 
complies  wilh  the  award  of  the  arbitrators  or 
the  recommendation  of  the  Council.  This  Arti- 
cle must  be  read  with  Articles  XIII,  XIV,  XV, 
and  XVI,  because  these  last-named  Articles 
prescribe  the  manner  of  submitting  to  arbitra- 
tion or  inquiry,  and  the  procedure  of  the  Body 
of  Delegates  or  Executive  Council  with  refer- 
ence to  decisions  when  matters  are  submitted 
to  inquiry. 

Article  XIII  makes  it  clear  that  the  member- 
Stales  agree  to  submit  to  arbitration  only 
those  things  which  they  recognize  to  be  suit- 
able for  submission.  Having  submitted,  they 
agree  to  abide  by  the  award.  But  the  other 
member-Slales  do  not  agree  to  enforce  the  ar- 
bitral award.  In  the  event  of  a  failure  to  carry 
out  the  award,  the  Executive  Council  "shall 
propose"  what  steps  can  best  be  taken  to  give 
effect  thereto.  As  to  arbitration,  then,  this 
is  not  very  formidable.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  before  the  adoption  of  the  final  draft 
of  the  Covenant  an  independenl  court  (as  pro- 
posed by  Article  XIV)  may  be  incorporated  as 
part  of  the  Covenanl,  or  al  leasl  that  the  im- 

170 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,  1919 

portant  distinction  that  has  been  developing 
during  the  last  few  years  between  judicial  and 
political  questions  may  be  preserved,  the  former 
type  of  controversy  going  to  the  Court  and  the 
latter  type  to  the  Executive  Council.* 

6  We  have  already  noted,  p.  62  supra,  the  distinction  between 
arbitration  and  mediation.  Those  who  believe  that  the  problem 
of  peace  is  the  problem  of  justice  must  regret  any  step  which 
seems  to  minimize  in  any  way  the  importance  of  settling  inter- 
national disputes,  so  far  as  possible,  by  judicial  as  opposed  to 
diplomatic  methods.  On  this  point  note  former  Secretary  Root's 
instructions  to  the  American  Delegates  to  the  Hague  Conference 
of  1907,  especially  the  following: 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  principal  objection  to  ar- 
bitration rests  not  upon  the  unwillingness  of  nations  to  submit 
their  controversies  to  impartial  arbitration,  but  upon  an  ap- 
prehension that  the  arbitrations  to  which  they  submit  may  not 
be  impartial.  It  has  been  a  very  general  practice  for  arbi- 
trators to  act,  not  as  judges  deciding  questions  of  fact  and  law 
upon  the  record  before  them  under  a  sense  of  judicial  respon- 
sibility, but  as  negotiators  effecting  settlements  of  the  ques- 
tions brought  before  them  in  accordance  with  the  traditions 
and  usages  and  subject  to  all  the  considerations  and  influences 
which  affect  diplomatic  agents.  The  two  methods  are  radically 
different,  proceed  upon  different  standards  of  honorable  ob- 
ligation and  frequently  lead  to  widely  differing  results.  It 
very  frequently  happens  that  a  nation  which  would  be  very 
willing  to  submit  its  differences  to  an  impartial  judicial  deter- 
mination is  unwilling  to  subject  them  to  this  kind  of  diplomatic 
process.  If  there  could  be  a  tribunal  which  would  pass  upon 
questions  between  nations  with  the  same  impartial  and  im- 
personal judgment  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  gives  to  questions  arising  between  citizens  of  the  differ- 
ent States,  or  between  foreign  citizens  and  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  nations  would  be 
much  more  ready  to  submit  their  controversies  to  its  decision 
than  they  are  now  to  take  the  chances  of  arbitration." — James 
Brown  Scott's  The  Hague  Conferences,  American  Instructions 
and  Reports,  p.  79. 

171 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Article  XV  is  a  most  important  Article  be- 
cause of  the  extent  to  which  it  qualifies  the 
broad  language  of  Article  XII.  It  is  under 
this  Article  that  all  political  disputes  will  fall. 
Matters  not  submitted  to  arbitration  come  be- 
fore the  Executive  Council  for  investigation 
and  consideration,  and  this  is  the  procedure: 

(1)  If   the   Council   through   its   mediation 

brings  about  a  settlement  of  the  matter 
it  publishes  a  statement  showing  the 
nature  of  the  dispute  and  the  terms  of 
settlement,  with  such  explanation  as 
may  be  appropriate.  The  particular 
controversy  will  then  be  closed  and  the 
publication  would  be  for  the  purposes 
of  the  record  and  the  proof  to  the 
world  of  the  advantage  of  such  sub- 
mission and  consequent  settlement. 

(2)  If  the  dispute  is  not  settled  the  Council 

will  publish  a  report.  If  the  report  is 
unanimously  agreed  to  by  all  members 
of  the  Council  other  than  the  parties 
in  dispute,  each  party  to  the  dispute 
agrees  not  to  go  to  war  against  the 
other  party  if  that  other  party  complies 
with  the  recommendation  in  such 
unanimous  report.  There  is  no  cove- 
nant of  a  member-State  to  comply 
with  even  a  unanimous  recommenda- 

172 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

tion.  If  a  member-State  refuses  to 
comply  with  such  a  recommendation 
the  Council  shall  then*propose  measures 
to  give  effect  to  the  recommendation. 

(3)  If  no  unanimous  report  is  made  the  ma- 

jority of  the  Council  is  obliged  to  make 
a  report  (and  the  minority  has  the 
privilege  of  making  a  report)  stating 
what  the  facts  are.  But,  failing  una- 
nimity, there  is  no  obligation  on  either 
of  the  disputants  to  refrain  from  war. 

(4)  But  note  the  important  further  qualifi- 

cation! The  Executive  Council  may 
refer  the  case  to  the  Body  of  Delegates, 
and  must  refer  it  if  either  party  to 
the  dispute  so  requests  within  fourteen 
days  after  the  submission  of  the  dis- 
pute. If  thus  referred  to  the  whole 
Body  of  Delegates,  then  all  the  pro- 
visions of  Article  XII  and  Article  XV 
apply  to  the  action  and  powers  of  the 
Body  of  Delegates.  Assuming  that 
there  are  twenty-four  members  of  the 
League  and  two  disputants,  again  it 
would  seem  clear  that  all  twenty-two 
of  the  disinterested  States  must  unani- 
mously come  to  a  conclusion  in  order 
to  bring  into  effect  the  agreement  not 
to  go  to  war  against  the  party  which 

173 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

complies  with  such  unanimous  recom- 
mendation. 

Article  XVI  provides  that  if  any  member- 
State  resorts  to  war  in  violation  of  its  covenants, 
contained  in  Article  XII,  it  shall  ipso  facto  be 
deemed  to  have  committed  an  act  of  war 
against  all  other  member-States;  but  the  other 
member-States  do  not  undertake  to  take  up 
arms  against  the  covenant-breaking  State.  They 
do  undertake,  however,  to  sever  all  trade  or 
financial  relations  with  the  offending  State, 
and  to  prohibit  all  intercourse  between  their 
nationals  and  the  nationals  of  the  offending 
State,  and  to  prevent  all  financial,  commercial 
or  personal  intercourse  between  the  nationals 
of  the  offending  State  and  the  nationals  of 
any  other  State,  whether  a  member  of  the 
League  or  not.  This  amounts  to  making  an 
outlaw  of  the  offending  State.  Of  course,  no 
such  boycott  could  ever  be  put  into  operation 
without  causing  a  serious  hurt  to  the  boy- 
cotting, as  well  as  to  the  boycotted,  State. 
Article  XVI,  therefore,  contains  an  agreement 
that  the  member-States  will  mutually  support 
one  another  in  distributing  the  loss.  This  would 
require  specific  action  by  each  State,  which, 
of  course,  would  have  to  be  authorized  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
assenting  States.  Finally,  it  would  seem  that 

174 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

this  Article  XVI  marks  the  abolition  of  the 
whole  theory  of  neutrality  in  those  wars  where 
the  civilized  world  is  fighting  an  international 
outlaw. 

The  obligations  imposed  upon  the  member- 
States  with  reference  to  the  handling  of  inter- 
national disputes  might  be  summed  up  as 
follows: 

(1)  Each  member-State  agrees  to  talk  things 

over  before  resorting  to  the  sword; 

(2)  Each  member-State  agrees  not  to  go  to 

war  against  the  expressed  public  opin- 
ion of  the  civilized  world; 

(3)  Each  member-State  agrees  to  boycott  a 

covenant-breaking  State  and  make  it 
an  outlaw  so  far  as  possible; 

(4)  No  member-State  makes  any  covenant  to 

wage  war  upon  the  command  or  direc- 
tion of  any  foreign  body,  although  the 
covenants  expressly  undertaken  by  it 
may  well  make  it  the  honorable  duty  of 
its  own  proper  governmental  bodies  to 
declare  a  war  against  an  international 
wrong-doer. 

THIRD:  THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  COVENANT  UPON 
THE  TRADITIONAL  FOREIGN  POLICY  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES: 

175 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

The  traditional  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States  is  based  upon  Washington's  Farewell 
Address,  President  Monroe's  message  of  De- 
cember 2,  1823,  and  the  series  of  public  decla- 
rations that  have  been  built  up  around  those 
two  historic  statements.  This  policy  is  gen- 
erally referred  to  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and 
at  both  Hague  Conferences  the  United  States 
accepted  the  conventions  with  the  formal 
reservation  which  we  quoted  in  a  prior  article. 
We  think  it  fair  to  say  that  America  under- 
stands by  the  Monroe  Doctrine  (1),  not  only 
a  prohibition  of  European  Powers  from  ex- 
tending to  the  western  hemisphere  "their  politi- 
cal system,"  but  also  (2)  the  broader  policy 
of  the  political  separation  of  the  western  from 
the  eastern  hemisphere,  so  far  as  that  is  pos- 
sible. Let  us  consider  the  narrow  and  the 
broad  view  of  the  policy  separately: 

I — President  Roosevelt,  in  his  First  Annual 
Message  of  December  3, 1901,  stated  the  nar- 
row view  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  when  he  re- 
ferred to  it  as  a  declaration  "that  there  must 
be  no  territorial  aggrandizement  by  any  non- 
American  power  at  the  expense  of  any  American 
power  on  American  soil."  Ex-President  Taft 
is  quite  right  in  saying  that  the  proposed 
Covenant  contains  nothing  to  interfere  with 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  thus  narrowly  stated. 

176 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

In  fact,  Article  X  of  the  Covenant  brings  the 
European  States  into  a  specific  contract  "to 
respect  and  preserve  as  against  external  ag- 
gression" the  political  independence  of  all 
member-States. 

II — But  there  is  the  broader  sense  in  which 
the  American  people  understand  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  that  the  United  States  shall  not  en- 
tangle itself  in  European  political  questions, 
and  that  non-American  powers  shall  not  inter- 
fere in  governmental  matters  in  this  hemi- 
sphere. And  it  is  in  this  sense  that  Senator 
Lodge  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  February 
28th  speaks  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  when  he 
says: 

The  real  essence  of  that  doctrine  is  that  Amer- 
ican questions  shall  be  settled  by  Americans  alone; 
that  the  Americas  shall  be  separated  from  Europe 
and  from  the  interference  of  Europe  in  purely 
American  questions.  That  is  the  vital  principle 
of  the  doctrine. 

It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  the  accept- 
ance of  the  Covenant  will  be  a  formal  recog- 
nition of  the  ending  of  American  isolation  from 
world  affairs.  The  entrance  of  the  United 
States  into  any  League  of  Nations  must  mean 
that  the  United  States  recognizes  some  interest 

177 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

in  the  preservation  of  order  in  the  world  outside 
the  western  hemisphere.  But  is  the  acceptance 
by  the  United  States  of  a  place  in  world  affairs 
any  more  than  a  recognition  of  a  great  historic 
fact  ?  President  Wilson  in  his  address  to  the  Sen- 
ate on  January  22,  1917,  proposed  that  when 
peace  should  come  the  United  States  should 
"add  their  authority  and  their  power  to  the 
authority  and  force  of  other  nations  to  guar- 
antee peace  and  justice  throughout  the  world." 
A  short  time  thereafter  America  entered  the 
war.  Two  million  American  soldiers  have  been 
sent  across  the  ocean  by  the  United  States 
Government — soldiers  drawn  from  civil  life  by 
a  universal  military  service  law.  They  fought 
for  what  we  all  believe  to  be  American  ideals. 
The  bodies  of  seventy  thousand  of  them  are  rest- 
ing in  France.  Is  it  possible  to  fairly  discuss 
the  traditional  policy  of  "not  intruding  upon'* 
the  political  questions  of  Europe  without  recog- 
nizing this  great,  overpowering  fact?  It  will 
be  urged  that  we  do  not  want  to  make  this 
war  a  precedent.  Quite  true!  We  want  to 
do  everything  in  our  power  to  avoid  sending 
soldiers  to  Europe  again.  The  chief  purpose 
of  the  new  organization  of  the  Society  of  States 
is  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  events  which 
forced  us  to  go  to  Europe.  There  has  been 
much  discussion  as  to  whether  we  went  to  war 

178 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

for  America  or  for  humanity!  We  went  to 
war  for  both!  We  went  to  war,  not  because  we 
had  become  a  warlike  people,  not  because  we 
had  a  quixotic  desire  to  take  care  of  the  whole 
world;  but  because  we  could  not  avoid  war, 
because  we  were  part  of  a  Society  of  States,  and 
the  violent  wrong  that  was  being  done  to  other 
members  of  that  Society  was  also  a  violent 
wrong  to  us  which  threatened  our  whole  future 
life.  America's  aim  has  not  been  better  stated 
than  in  the  President's  fourteen-poiht  speech: 

What  we  demand  m  this  war,  therefore,  is 
nothing  peculiar  to  ourselves.  It  is  that  the  world 
be  made  fit  and  safe  to  live  in;  and  particularly 
that  it  be  made  safe  for  every  peace-loving  nation 
which,  like  our  own,  wishes  to  live  its  own  life, 
determine  its  own  institutions,  be  assured  of  justice 
and  fair  dealing  by  the  other  peoples  of  the  world 
as  against  force  and  selfish  aggression. 

The  United  States  had,  then,  so  great  an  in- 
terest in  the  affairs  of  Europe  that  it  rightly 
went  into  the  war.  It  has  the  same  interest  to 
prevent  a  repetition  of  that  war.  The  United 
States  wishes  to  live  its  own  life;  it  will  insist 
upon  determining  its  own  institutions;  but  it 
cannot  live  its  own  life  and  determine  its  own 
institutions  if  the  globe  upon  which  it  lives — 
constantly  growing  smaller  with  the  advance 

179 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

of  science — is  to  be  frequently  interrupted  by 
world  struggles  of  the  kind  that  we  have  just 
passed  through.  It  is  for  that  reason  that 
representatives  of  the  United  States  are  now 
participating  in  the  counsels  of  the  world,  try- 
ing to  formulate  acceptable  improvements  in 
the  rules  of  the  Society  of  States. 

Yet  there  is  another  aspect.  The  clauses  of 
the  proposed  Covenant  which  contemplate  that 
our  own  disputes  with  our  American  neighbors 
may  be  investigated  through  the  machinery  of 
the  League  of  Nations  should  give  little  cause 
for  disapproval.  We  have  already  agreed  in  the 
Bryan  treaties  to  submit  our  quarrels  with 
them  to  arbitration  or  inquiry,  and  it  is  not 
particularly  important  what  fair  tribunal  we 
choose.  Is  our  disquiet  not  due  to  a  different 
reason?  May  it  not  be  distasteful  to  Americans 
— in  the  light  of  their  traditions — to  contem- 
plate in  practice  the  enforcement  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  League  in  the  western  hemi- 
sphere by  European  Powers?  And  is  it  not 
equally  distasteful  to  contemplate  the  sending 
of  American  soldiers  to  some  temporary  broil  in 
the  Balkans  or  in  Poland  or  in  Russia?  To 
stem  a  world  cataclysm,  America  has  proved 
with  her  dead  that  she  will  not  shrink  from 
such  contingencies.  But  the  men  and  women 
of  the  country  would  feel  easier  in  having  the 

180 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

United  States  accept  the  proposed  Covenant  if 
it  were  known  that  military  enforcement  should 
be  dealt  with,  in  the  first  instance,  in  world 
compartments.  The  disputed  issue  might  still 
be  tried  in  the  light  of  the  public  opinion  of  the 
whole  world,  but  when  enforcement  of  the 
decision  became  necessary,  the  States  of  the 
western  hemisphere,  including  the  United  States, 
might  well  have  the  initial  responsibility  to 
quell  breaches  of  international  peace  in  this 
hemisphere,  the  European  and  Asian  States 
having  only  a  secondary  obligation  here;  and 
similarly,  breaches  of  international  peace  in  the 
eastern  hemisphere  might  be  dealt  with  in  the 
first  instance  by  the  States  of  that  hemisphere, 
the  American  States  having  only  a  secondary 
obligation  in  those  theaters.7  There  would 
seem  to  be  little  doubt  that  this  would  be  the 
rule  in  practice,  even  as  the  Covenant  is  drawn, 
but  it  would  be  well  to  make  an  express  provision 
with  reference  to  this  point  in  the  Covenant. 

This  discussion  is  intended  as  an  aid  to  com- 
prehension of  the  problems  which  the  Covenant 
raises  rather  than  a  detailed  analysis  of  every 

7  On  the  Monroe  Doctrine  see  John  Bassett  Moore's  Prin- 
ciple? of  American  Diplomacy,  especially  Chaps.  VI  and  X;  Albert 
Bushnell  Hart's  Monroe  Doctrine  and  Interpretations;  John  W. 
Foster,  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,  Chap.  XII;  "Cosmos," 
The  Basis  of  a  Durable  Peace,  Chap.  XV. 
13  181 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

section.  Arrangement,  phraseology,  and  cer- 
tain special  matters,  though  of  importance,  are 
not  dealt  with.  It  may,  for  instance,  well  be 
questioned  whether  the  undertaking  in  Article 
X  should  be  unlimited  either  as  to  the  terri- 
torial boundaries  affected  or  as  to  the  time 
that  the  obligation  is  to  last.  The  justice  of 
the  territorial  boundaries  of  the  new  States, 
however  well  the  Peace  Conferees  may  do  their 
work,  must  remain  problematical  until  experience 
proves  the  wisdom  of  the  work  of  this  generation. 
It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  undertak- 
ing given  by  Article  X  is  not  against  external 
attack,  but  only  against  external  aggression. 
What  is  aggression?  It  was  probably  the  in- 
tention of  the  draftsmen  that  all  of  the  pro- 
cedure of  Articles  XII  to  XVI  should  come 
into  force  in  connection  with  this  Article  X. 
This,  however,  is  not  clear.  May  it  not  also 
be  urged  that  Article  XXI,  which  deals  with  free- 
dom of  transit  and  equitable  treatment  for  com- 
merce, is  too  vague?  This  article  seems  designed 
primarily  to  relieve  the  commercial  handicaps  of 
those  whose  property  has  been  devastated  by  the 
war.  While  it  undoubtedly  contemplates  a  fur- 
ther treaty,  or  treaties,  in  order  to  make  the 
"provision"  which  will  accomplish  the  ends 
aimed  at  in  the  Article,  it  may  well  be  that  ina- 
bility to  agree  upon  the  terms  of  such  treaty,  or 

182 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

treaties,  will  lay  the  United  States  open  to  a 
charge  of  bad  faith.  The  provisions  of  Article 
XVI,  dealing  with  the  prevention  of  financial, 
commercial  or  personal  intercourse  between 
nationals  of  a  Covenant-breaking  State  and  the 
nationals  of  any  other  State,  should  be  clarified. 
Article  XVIII,  which  is  evidently  designed  to 
deal  with  trade  in  munitions  with  backward  or 
belligerent  countries,  might  better  be  incor- 
porated in  Article  VIII.  Very  careful  con- 
sideration should  be  given  to  the  suggestions 
of  ex-President  Taft  that  the  obligations  of  the 
whole  Covenant  should  be  limited  to  a  fixed 
period  or  that  member-States  should  have  a 
right  of  withdrawal  upon  a  proper  notice.  It 
need  not  be  feared  that  this  will  interfere  with 
a  permanent  advance  in  international  organi- 
zation and  friendship.  There  is  a  right  of  with- 
drawal from  the  Universal  Postal  Union  by  a 
notice  of  one  year;  and  it  has  not  been  found 
detrimental.  An  exhaustive,  non-partisan  de- 
bate in  the  Senate  upon  all  of  these  points 
would  be  most  helpful. 

One  thing  more.  It  may  be  urged  that  if 
the  Covenant  does  not  create  a  World-State  with 
an  international  army,  and  if  the  various  inter- 
national bodies  which  the  Covenant  contem- 
plates have  no  greater  power  than  the  fore- 

183 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

going  analysis  would  indicate,  what  then  is  the 
advantage  of  the  League?  Does  not  such  a 
question  ignore  the  fundamental  problem  of  the 
Peace  Conferees?  They  cannot  create  a  World- 
State.  Not  only  the  teachings  of  history,  but 
the  deep  desires  of  their  peoples  forbid  them. 
They  must  preserve  the  national  States.  In 
the  conflict  between  national  independence  and 
world-order  they  are  compelled  to  throw  the 
weight  on  the  side  of  national  independence. 
The  peace  of  the  world  cannot  be  reached  by 
a  return  to  the  ideal  of  the  universal  peace  of 
force.  The  peace  that  is  sought  is  a  peace  of 
justice,  not  a  peace  of  force.  The  universal 
peace  must  come  through  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  free  national  States,  and  through 
the  voluntary  recognition  by  those  national  States 
that  they  are  members  in  a  Society  of  States. 
That  voluntary  recognition  of  international  duties 
is  the  thing  that  has  been  sadly  lacking.  For 
three  hundred  years  the  world  has  been  trying 
to  get  a  rational  understanding  of  State-sov- 
ereignty. If  that  phrase  means  that  each  State 
in  its  external  relations  has  the  right  to  do 
whatever  it  has  the  power  to  do,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  defeat  of  Germany  has  marked 
the  end  of  the  doctrine.  The  value  of  the 
League  is  in  the  recognition  of  the  fact,  formally 
expressed  in  Article  XI,  that  hereafter  civilized 

184 


THE  DRAFT  OF  FEBRUARY  14,   1919 

States  are  to  pay  some  attention  to  that  "good 
understanding  between  nations"  upon  which  a 
just  peace  must  necessarily  depend,  and  the 
recognition  also  in  the  same  Article  of  the  fact — 
made  clear  by  the  war — that  "any  war,  or 
threat  of  war,"  is  a  matter  of  concern  to  all. 

Viewing  the  Covenant,  then,  in  its  broad 
purposes,  two  main  points  stand  forth: 

FIRST:  The  Covenant  starts  right.  It  rec- 
ognizes that  wars  are  due  largely  to  misun- 
derstandings; that  the  prevention  of  the  growth 
of  distrust  is  the  vital  need  of  the  world;  and 
it  creates  an  organization  for  constant  common 
counsel,  designed  to  prevent  distrust. 

This  is  in  line  with  the  President's  words 
of  July  20,  1916: 

Permanent  peace  can  grow  in  only  one  soil. 
That  is  the  soil  of  actual  good  will,  and  good  will 
cannot  exist  without  mutual  comprehension.8 

8  Bernard  Bosanquet  makes  this  interesting  comment  upon  the 
way  wars  begin: 

"What  we  want,  as  I  hold,  is  to  see  not  how  devilish  the 
thing  is  in  the  end,  but  how  simple  and  natural  it  is  in  the 
beginning,  and  how  just  as  simply  and  naturally  its  avoidance 
might  come.  It  is  the  typical  'misunderstanding,'  and  we 
know  that  a  'misunderstanding'  is  the  euphemism  for  a  quar- 
rel, and,  it  may  be,  for  a  very  nasty  one.  A  hundred  million 
people  are  resolved  to  march  south  at  a  given  hour  on  given 
narrow  roads;  and  another  hundred  million  to  march  north 
on  the  same  roads  at  the  same  time.  Nobody  need  be  devilish 
on  either  side.  They  do  not  want  a  collision;  they  merely 
185 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

SECOND:  The  Covenant  very  properly  avoids 
any  effort  to  create  an  international  sheriff,  but 
relies  mainly  upon  retarding  States  on  the  way 
to  war.  And  to  accomplish  this  purpose  it  creates 
machinery  designed  to  secure  the  widest  pub- 
licity and  the  focusing  upon  the  controversy  of 
the  public  opinion  of  the  whole  civilized  world. 

This  is  in  accord  with  the  pledge  of  the 
President  in  his  speech  of  September  2, 1916: 

The  nations  of  the  world  must  unite  in  joint 
guarantees  that  whatever  is  done  to  disturb  the 
whole  world's  life  must  first  be  tested  in  the  court 
of  the  whole  world's  opinion  before  it  is  attempted. 

The  reliance  of  the  proposed  Covenant  upon 
the  operation  of  these  two  main  principles 
broadly  distinguishes  it  from  any  previous  com- 
bination of  nations  to  prevent  war.  It  is  in 
this  reliance  that  this  Covenant  gives  promise 
of  bringing  about  an  international  relationship 
by  which  each  State  may  be  left  unhampered  to 

want  to  do  exactly  what  they  have  set  their  hearts  on  doing. 
But  a  frightful  collision  must  ensue.  Then,  of  course,  when 
they  are  on  the  roads,  and  can  see  no  way  round,  they  will 
become  devilish. 

Of  course  there  is  always  a  way  round,  if  we  look  out  for 
it  in  time.  But  stupidity  prevents  us.  Nations  are  not 
alert,  not  sensitive,  to  the  minds  and  needs  of  other  nations; 
they  do  not  realize  where  others  want  to  go  and  why;  nor  how 
their  own  direction  can  be  modified  in  harmony  with  the  others', 
and  yet  none  of  their  really  essential  aims  be  sacrificed." — 
Bernard  Bosanquet,  Some  Suggestions  in  Ethics,  pp.  243-244. 
186 


THE  DRAFT  OP  FEBRUARY   14,    1919 

express  its  own  national  life  and  at  the  same 
time  may  formally  recognize  that  it  is  only  one 
of  a  number  of  States,  all  of  which  have  equal 
rights  to  exist  upon  the  same  globe,  that  each 
one  must  respect  the  rights  of  the  others  and 
have  enough  confidence  in  its  own  rights  to  be 
willing  to  submit  them  to  the  informed  public 
opinion  of  the  civilized  world*. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  text  of  the  peace  Covenant  is  printed  in  this 
volume  as  an  appendix. 

The  speeches  of  the  members  of  the  Peace  Confer- 
ence upon  the  submission  of  the  draft  of  the 
Covenant  to  the  Plenary  meeting  of  the  Con- 
ference appear  in  full  in  the  London  Times  of 
February  17,  1919.  They  include  speeches 
by  President  Wilson,  Lord  Robert  Cecil, 
Signer  Vittorio  Orlando,  M.  Bourgeois,  Baron 
Makino,  George  Nicoll  Barnes,  Eleutherios 
Venizelos,  Wellington  Koo  and  Rustem  Haida. 

For  the  speeches  in  the  United  States  Senate  upon 
the  Covenant,  see  Congressional  Record,  Vol. 
57;  Senator  Poindexter,  pp.  3930-3940; 
Senator  Borah,  pp.  4252-4256;  Senator  Reed, 
pp.  4201-4208;  Senator  Frelinghuysen,  pp. 
4798-4802;  Senator  Lewis,  pp.  4948-4956; 
Senator  Cummins,  pp.  4526-4532;  Senator 
Owen,  pp.  4537-4542;  Senator  Hitchcock,  pp. 
187 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

4672-4676;  Senator  Lodge,  pp.  4745-4753;  Sen- 
ator Lenroot,  pp.  4794-4798;  Senator  Knox, 
pp.  4918-4925;  Senator  Hardwick,  pp.  4930- 
4936;  Senator  Sherman,  pp.  5108-5114;  Senator 
McCumber,  pp.  5117-5127;  Senator  Spencer, 
pp.  5133-5134. 

What  purports  to  be  a  full  record  of  the  speech  of 
ex-President  Ta/t  delivered  at  the  meeting  in 
the  Metropolitan  Opera  House,  New  York 
City,  March  4th,  appears  in  the  New  York 
Herald  of  March  5,  1919. 

The  New  York  Evening  Post  of  March  8,  1919, 
contains  an  analysis  of  the  Covenant  by  former 
Attorney-General  George  W.  Wickersham. 

The  New  York  Times  of  March  12,  1919,  con- 
tains a  statement  of  former  Secretary  of  State 
William  J.  Bryan,  suggesting  some  amend- 
ments to  the  Covenant. 

The  New  York  Times  of  March  20,  1919,  contains 
the  speeches  of  Senator  Lodge,  of  Massachu- 
setts, and  President  Lowell,  of  Harvard,  in  the 
debate  held  in  Boston  on  Thursday,  March  19, 
1919. 


X 

CONCLUSION 

IN  this  series  of  articles  we  have  discussed 
some  of  the  more  important  phases  of  the 
"League  of  Nations  idea."  Seven  and  one- 
half  million  men  have  been  killed  in  the  great 
war,  and  many  more  have  been  permanently 
maimed.  The  great  tragedy  of  to-day  has 
brought  to  the  people  of  the  world,  as  similar 
tragedies  have  done  in  the  past,  a  deep  desire 
to  prevent,  so  far  as  may  be  humanly  possible, 
recurrence  of  such  a  ghastly  misdirection  of 
human  energy.  There  is  always  a  great  temp- 
tation to  any  generation  to  forget  the  experi- 
ence of  its  fathers,  to  assume  that  the  ills  of 
the  world — so  many  of  which  lie  deep  in  our 
own  natures — can  be  cured  by  short-cut  meth- 
ods. It  has,  therefore,  seemed  worth  while  to 
review  with  some  care  the  efforts  of  past  genera- 
tions to  attain  a  durable  peace. 

We  have  seen  that  almost  all  of  the  so-called 
"peace  plans"  have  been  based  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  men  could  do  away  with  war 

189 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

by  merely  agreeing  to  do  away  with  it.  Espe- 
cially is  this  true  of  the  plans  made  in  the  days 
of  the  dynasties.  Emeric  Cruce"  thought  war 
would  cease  if  the  princes  would  only  so  will 
it.  "Only  let  peace  be  published  By  the  Or- 
ders of  the  King.  These  words  will  make  their 
arms  drop  from  their  hands."  And  William 
Perm  considered  war  "duels  of  princes."  It  is 
the  princes  who  quarrel  about  precedency; 
therefore  get  them  together  in  a  round  room 
with  "divers  doors  to  come  in  and  go  out  at" 
in  order  that  questions  of  precedence  may  be 
avoided.  How  little  stress  these  early  plans 
laid  upon  human  nature! 

But  while  the  makers  of  the  peace  plans  were 
dealing  with  human  nature  as  it  ought  to  be, 
the  diplomatists  and  jurists  were  dealing  with 
human  nature  as  it  is.  For  three  hundred  years 
the  rules  of  international  law  have  been  slowly 
building.  They  have  been  violated  time  and 
time  again,  but  no  physical  force  in  the  world 
has  been  strong  enough  to  stop  completely  the 
development  of  law.  And  after  each  war  men 
have  availed  of  the  temper  of  mankind  to 
make  a  slight  advance  in  international  fair 
play.  In  this  great  work  of  advancing  the 
principle  of  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes, 
the  United  States  has  taken  an  honorable 
part. 

190 


CONCLUSION 

We  have  also  reviewed  some  great  forces  of 
human  relationship  that  have  been  drawing  the 
world  closer  together,  unaffected  by  the  plans 
of  the  statesmen  and  the  peace  visions  of  the 
seers — the  work  of  the  scientists  and  the  com- 
mercial men.  We  have  also  discussed  the  co- 
operative effort  forced  upon  the  enemies  of 
Germany  by  the  exigencies  of  the  great  war, 
and  we  have  pointed  out  that,  even  when  States 
were  fighting  for  their  lives,  it  was  not  possible 
to  weld  the  separate  allied  States  into  one, 
that  they  still  remained  separate  States  acting 
in  unison  only  when,  after  complete  compre- 
hension of  the  facts,  the  proposed  action  was 
agreeable  to  all. 

After  reviewing  the  forces  that  have  brought 
the  world  together,  we  have  considered  the 
spirit  of  nationality,  which  has  been  so  potent 
an  element  in  the  development  of  the  separate 
States  during  the  past  three  hundred  years, 
and  especially  during  the  last  one  hundred 
years.  The  fact  that  this  strong  spirit  of 
nationality  has  been  a  divergent  force  must  not 
blind  us  to  its  beneficent  influence  in  the  world 
to-day.  In  the  United  States  we  all  hope  to 
see  an  increase  in  our  national  spirit.  We 
are  busy  with  plans  for  Americanization.  We 
want  to  pay  more  attention  to  the  welcoming 
and  the  assimilation  of  the  immigrant.  We 

191 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

have  been  awed  by  the  sight  of  men  who  could 
not  even  speak  our  tongue  marching  cheerfully 
to  conscription  camps  and  dying  bravely  on 
the  fields  of  France  under  American  leadership 
and  for  the  fundamental  principles  of  American 
life.  The  world  cannot  afford  to  weaken  the 
proper  spirit  of  nationality,  for  it  is  the  spirit 
of  patriotism,  the  spirit  of  subordinating  one's 
own  interest  to  the  interest  of  the  State.  We 
must  keep  and  develop  the  spirit  of  nationality; 
but,  if  civilized  States  are  not  to  go  on  de- 
stroying one  another,  we  must  begin  to  recon- 
cile it  with  world  order. 

We  have  seen  that  the  problem  of  reconciling 
liberty  with  order  is  the  oldest  problem  with 
which  social  man  has  struggled,  and  that  the 
present  effort  to  reconcile  national  self-govern- 
ment with  world  order  is  a  part  of  that  same 
problem.  It  may  well  be  the  last  problem  that 
man  will  completely  solve,  but  we  must  agree 
that  the  difficulty  of  the  solution  and  the 
remoteness  of  the  final  goal  do  not  relieve  any 
generation  from  doing  all  that  it  can  to  advance 
the  race  toward  that  goal. 

Finally,  we  have  discussed  the  draft  of  the 
Covenant,  which  is  the  effort  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Peace  Conference  to  advance  the  work  of 
reconciliation.  And  if  we  have  read  the  pro- 
posed Covenant  aright,  it  was  the  intention  of 

Iff 


CONCLUSION 

the  Committee  to  put  limitations  upon  the 
separate  States  only  in  those  cases  where  their 
external  activities  might  bring  the  whole  So- 
ciety of  States  again  into  world  disorder.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Covenant  seeks  to  accom- 
plish this  (1)  by  arranging  bodies  of  common 
counsel  with  very  little  practical  power  except 
to  discuss  and  recommend,  and  (2)  by  putting 
a  long  period  of  discussion  in  the  pathway  of 
disputant  States  before  they  go  to  war. 

How  will  the  American  people  approach  their 
consideration  of  the  Covenant? 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  not  forget  that  it  is 
the  report  of  a  Committee,  and  that  it  is  now 
before  the  world  in  order  to  secure  the  sober 
opinion  of  mankind.  There  could  have  been 
no  reason  for  publishing  it  before  its  adoption 
by  the  whole  Conference  except  to  secure  in 
all  countries  the  fullest  discussion  of  all  its 
terms.  It  is  not  only  the  privilege  but  the  duty 
of  all  to  endeavor  to  improve  it  and  to  assume 
that  the  Peace  Conference  will  desire  improve- 
ment of  any  or  all  of  its  terms. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Covenant  as  submitted  has  been  as- 
sented to  by  the  representatives  of  fourteen 
States,  speaking  at  least  eight  different  lan- 
guages. It  may  be  true  that  there  are  men  in 
America  or  in  England  or  in  France  or  in  other 

193 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

countries  who  could  draw  a  better  plan. 
There  would  still  be  a  question  to  be  answered. 
Would  their  plan  have  as  good  a  chance  of 
adoption?  Let  us  remember  that,  as  the  Presi- 
dent stated  when  he  submitted  the  Covenant 
to  the  Peace  Conference,  the  men  sitting 
around  the  peace  table  represented  twelve 
hundred  million  human  beings.  Surely  not  a 
small  number  to  bring  into  agreement!  In  dis- 
cussing the  plan,  therefore,  is  it  not  our  duty 
to  try  to  improve  this  plan,  rather  than  to 
attempt  to  devise  a  new  one  which  must  start 
again  from  the  beginning? 

After  the  Peace  Conference  has  finally 
adopted  the  Covenant  in  an  amended  form,  it 
will  come  before  the  several  States  of  the  world 
for  ratification.  The  problem  that  will  pre- 
sent itself  at  that  time  will  not  be  simply 
whether  we  do  or  do  not  approve  of  the  Cove- 
nant. The  problem  will  then  be  an  alternative. 
Are  the  new  rules  of  the  Society  of  States  pref- 
erable to  the  present  chaotic  rules?  Might  it 
not  be  well  for  men  to  avoid  doing  anything 
now  which  would  make  it  difficult  for  them  to 
act  with  unbiased  minds  upon  the  alternative 
that  then  presents  itself?  On  this  we  may 
learn  something  from  Benjamin  Franklin,  the 
oldest  and  perhaps  the  wisest  member  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1787.  At  the 

194 


CONCLUSION 

end  of  that  historic  meeting  in  Philadelphia  he 
said:  "I  confess  that  there  are  several  parts  of 
this  constitution  which  I  do  not  at  present  ap- 
prove, but  I  am  not  sure  I  shall  never  approve 
them:  For  having  lived  long,  I  have  experienced 
many  instances  of  being  obliged  by  better  infor- 
mation or  fuller  consideration,  to  change  opin- 
ions even  on  important  subjects,  which  I  once 
thought  right,  but  found  to  be  otherwise." 1  When 
the  alternative  of  accepting  or  rejecting  the  Cove- 
nant is  finally  presented  to  us  it  is  unlikely  that  all 
of  the  amendments  that  we  desire  will  have  been 
incorporated.  Must  we  not  remember  that 
with  the  number  of  States  involved  there  must 
be  considerable  give  and  take?  In  the  New 
York  State  Convention  called  to  ratify  the 
Federal  Constitution,  Alexander  Hamilton 
said:  "Let  a  convention  be  called  to- 
morrow; let  them  meet  twenty  times,  nay, 
twenty  thousand  times;  they  will  have  the 
same  difficulties  to  encounter,  the  same  clash- 
ing interests  to  reconcile."2  It  will  be  even  so 
in  this  case! 

One  thing  we  may  all  agree  upon!  The  mo- 
tives of  the  proponents  or  opponents  of  the 
Covenant  as  it  is  finally  drawn  will  be  of  very 
little  importance.  Surely,  it  is  the  duty  of  all 

1  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution  (1900),  HI,  p.  761. 
8  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  II,  p.  236. 
195 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

reasonable  men  to  avoid  the  assumption  that 
those  on  the  other  side  have  motives  less  dis- 
interested than  their  own.  What  does  it  avail 
to  say  that  the  President  is  promoting  the 
League  to  secure  a  local  partizan  advantage? 
Is  it  not  equally  bootless  to  accuse  members  of 
the  United  States  Senate  of  opposing  the  Cove- 
nant from  partisan  motives?  It  is  of  the  highest 
importance  that  the  United  States  Senate,  the 
constitutional  branch  of  our  government  charged 
by  the  people  with  approving  or  disapproving 
the  ultimate  treaty  which  is  made  at  Paris, 
should  discuss  the  peace  Covenant  with  the 
utmost  thoroughness  and  consider  its  effect 
from  every  angle  upon  the  future  of  the  Amer- 
ican nation.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  other 
races,  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  has  not  yet  found 
any  method  of  discovering  political  truth  or 
error  that  compares  with  courteous  controversy 
in  public.  By  all  means,  then,  let  us  have  the 
fullest  discussion  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
in  the  press,  in  the  pulpit,  in  the  schools,  and 
in  all  public  meeting-places.  The  temper  of 
that  discussion  will  be  a  great  test  of  our 
capacity  as  a  self-governing  people.  Will  we 
be  able  to  keep  in  mind  the  advice  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  in  the  first  number  of  the  Federalist, 
that  "in  politics,  as  in  religion,  it  is  equally 
absurd  to  aim  at  making  proselytes  by  fire  and 

196 


CONCLUSION 

sword.  Heresies  in  either  can  rarely  be  cured 
by  persecution." 

Will  the  Covenant  make  war  impossible? 
No  one  can  know.  We  cannot  write  anything 
on  parchment  that  will  make  men  trust  other 
men.  Before  universal  peace  comes  men  must 
desire  it.  Men  must  not  only  desire  agreement 
with  their  fellows,  but  must  be  willing  to  exert 
themselves  to  get  the  truth  about  their  fellows, 
without  which  agreement  is  impossible.  That 
is  one  of  the  strong  points  of  the  proposed 
Covenant — it  at  least  creates  some  organiza- 
tion designed  to  enable  men  in  different  States 
to  understand  one  another  a  little  better.  But 
whatever  structure  we  create,  we  must  expect 
that  there  will  be  differences  between  men  to- 
morrow as  there  are  to-day  and  as  there  were 
yesterday.  A  permanent  and  universal  peace 
may  still  be  far  distant.  How  far  no  man  can  tell. 

The  ambitions  of  great  men,  the  suspicions  of 
little  men,  the  constant  misunderstandings  of 
all  men,  may  undermine  any  structure  that 
this  generation  builds.  If,  however,  we  build 
with  wisdom,  and  with  courage,  and  with  pa- 
tience, those  that  come  after  us  will  be  helped 
by  our  work.  Our  building  may  fall,  but  if 
we  have  built  aright  some  of  the  foundation- 
stones  will  remain  and  become  a  part  of  the 
structure  that  will  ultimately  abide. 

14  197 


APPENDIX 

TEXT  OF  THE  DRAFT  OF  COVENANT  SUBMITTED   TO 

THE   PEACE   CONFERENCE   ON   FEBRUARY 

14,    1919,    BY   THE   LEAGUE    OF 

NATIONS      COMMITTEE l 

THE  COVENANT 
PREAMBLE 

TN  order  to  promote  international  co-operation 
and  to  secure  international  peace  and  security 
by  the  acceptance  of  obligations  not  to  resort  to 
war,  by  the  prescription  of  open,  just,  and  honor- 
able relations  between  nations,  by  the  firm  estab- 
lishment of  the  understandings  of  international  law 
as  the  actual  rule  of  conduct  among  governments, 
and  by  the  maintenance  of  justice  and  a  scrupulous 
respect  for  all  treaty  obligations  in  the  dealings  of 
organized  peoples  with  one  another,  the  powers 
signatory  to  this  covenant  adopt  this  constitution 
of  the  league  of  nations. 


1  The  text  of  the  draft  of  the  Covenant  as  reprinted  here  was 
taken  from  the  Congressional  Record,  Vol.  57,  pp.  3559  to  3562, 
February  15,  1919. 

198 


APPENDIX 

ARTICLE   I 

The  action  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under 
the  terms  of  this  covenant  shall  be  effected  through 
the  instrumentality  of  meeting  of  a  body  of  dele- 
gates representing  the  high  contracting  parties,  of 
meeting  at  more  frequent  intervals  of  an  executive 
council,  and  of  a  permanent  international  secre- 
tariat to  be  established  at  the  seat  of  the  league. 

ARTICLE   II 

Meetings  of  the  body  of  delegates  shall  be  held 
at  stated  intervals  and  from  time  to  time  as  occasion 
may  require  for  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  matters 
within  the  sphere  of  action  of  the  league.  Meetings 
of  the  body  of  delegates  shall  be  held  at  the  seat  of 
the  league  or  at  such  other  place  as  may  be  found 
convenient,  and  shall  consist  of  representatives  of 
the  high  contracting  parties.  Each  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  shall  have  one  vote,  but  may 
not  have  more  than  three  representatives. 

ARTICLE   III 

The  executive  council  shall  consist  of  representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  British 
Empire,  France,  Italy,  and  Japan,  together  with 
representatives  of  four  other  States,  members  of 
the  league.  The  selection  of  these  four  States  shall 
be  made  by  the  body  of  delegates  on  such  principles 
and  in  such  manner  as  they  think  fit.  Pending  the 
appointment  of  these  representatives  of  the  other 

States,  representatives  of shall  be  members  of 

the  executive  council. 

199 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

Meetings  of  the  council  shall  be  held  from  time  to 
time  as  occasion  may  require,  and  at  least  once  a 
year,  at  whatever  place  may  be  decided  upon,  or, 
failing  in  any  such  decision,  at  the  seat  of  the  league, 
and  any  matter  within  the  sphere  of  action  of  the 
league  or  affecting  the  peace  of  the  world  may  be 
dealt  with  at  such  meetings. 

Invitations  shall  be  sent  to  any  power  to  attend 
a  meeting  of  the  council  at  which  matters  directly 
affecting  its  interests  are  to  be  discussed,  and  no 
decision  taken  at  any  meeting  will  be  binding  on 
such  powers  unless  so  invited. 

ARTICLE   IV 

All  matters  of  procedure  at  meetings  of  the  body 
of  delegates  or  the  executive  council,  including  the 
appointment  of  the  committees  to  investigate  par- 
ticular matters,  shall  be  regulated  by  the  body  of 
delegates  or  the  executive  council,  and  may  be  de- 
cided by  a  majority  of  the  States  represented  at  the 
meeting. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  body  of  delegates  and 
of  the  executive  council  shall  be  summoned  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

ARTICLE  v 

The  permanent  secretariat  of  the  league  shall  be 

established  at ,  which  shall  constitute  the  seat 

of  the  league.  The  secretariat  shall  comprise  such 
secretaries  and  staff  as  may  be  required,  under  the 
general  direction  and  control  of  a  secretary-general 
of  the  league,  who  shall  be  chosen  by  the  executive 

200 


APPENDIX 

council;  the  secretariat  shall  be  appointed  by  the 
secretary-general,  subject  to  confirmation  by  the 
executive  council. 

The  secretary-general  shall  act  in  that  capacity 
at  all  meetings  of  the  body  of  delegates  or  of  the 
executive  council. 

The  expenses  of  the  secretariat  shall  be  borne 
by  the  States  members  of  the  league  in  accordance 
with  appointment  of  the  expenses  of  the  Interna- 
tional Bureau  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union. 


ARTICLE   VI 

Representatives  of  the  high  contracting  parties 
and  officials  of  the  league  when  engaged  on  the 
business  of  the  league  shall  enjoy  diplomatic  privi- 
leges and  immunities,  and  the  buildings  occupied 
by  the  league  or  its  officials  or  by  representatives 
attending  its  meetings  shall  enjoy  the  benefits  of 
extraterritoriality. 

ARTICLE   VII 

Admission  to  the  league  of  States  not  signatories 
to  the  covenant  and  not  named  in  the  protocol 
hereto  as  States  to  be  invited  to  adhere  to  the  cove- 
nant requires  the  assent  of  not  less  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  States  represented  in  the  body  of 
delegates,  and  shall  be  limited  to  fully  self-governing 
countries,  including  dominions  and  colonies. 

No  State  shall  be  admitted  to  the  league  unless 
it  is  able  to  give  effective  guaranties  of  its  sincere 
intention  to  observe  its  international  obligations, 

and  unless  it  shall  conform  to  such  principles  as 

201 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

may  be  prescribed  by  the  league  in  regard  to  its 
naval  and  military  forces  and  armaments. 


ARTICLE  VIII 

The  high  contracting  parties  recognize  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  maintenance  of  peace  will  require 
the  reduction  of  national  armaments  to  the  lowest 
point  consistent  with  national  safety  and  the  en- 
forcement by  common  action  of  international  ob- 
ligations, having  special  regard  to  the  geographical 
situation  and  circumstances  of  each  State;  and  the 
executive  council  shall  formulate  plans  for  effecting 
such  reduction.  The  executive  council  shall  also 
determine  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  the 
several  Governments  what  military  equipment  and 
armament  is  fair  and  reasonable  in  proportion  to 
the  scale  of  forces  laid  down  in  the  program  of  dis- 
armament, and  these  limits,  when  adopted,  shall 
not  be  exceeded  without  the  permission  of  the 
executive  council. 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  manu- 
facture by  private  enterprise  of  munitions  and  im- 
plements of  war  lends  itself  to  grave  objections, 
and  direct  the  executive  council  to  advise  how  the 
evil  effects  attendant  upon  such  manufacture  can 
be  prevented,  due  regard  being  had  to  the  necessi- 
ties of  those  countries  which  are  not  able  to  manu- 
facture for  themselves  the  munitions  and  imple- 
ments of  war  necessary  for  their  safety. 

The  high  contracting  parties  undertake  in  no  way 
to  conceal  from  each  other  the  condition  of  such 
of  their  industries  as  are  capable  of  being  adapted 
to  warlike  purposes  or  the  scale  of  their  armaments, 

202 


APPENDIX 

and  agree  that  there  shall  be  full  and  frank  inter- 
change of  information  as  to  their  military  and  naval 
programs. 


ARTICLE   IX 

A  permanent  commission  shall  be  constituted  to 
advise  the  league  on  the  execution  of  the  provisions 
of  article  8  and  on  military  and  naval  questions 
generally. 

ARTICLE  x 

The  high  contracting  parties  undertake  to  respect 
and  preserve  as  against  external  aggression  the 
territorial  integrity  and  existing  political  indepen- 
dence of  all  States  members  of  the  league.  In  case 
of  any  such  aggression,  or  in  case  of  any  threat  or 
danger  of  such  aggression,  the  executive  council 
shall  advise  upon  the  means  by  which  the  obligation 
shall  be  fulfilled. 

ARTICLE   XI 

Any  war,  or  threat  of  war,  whether  immediately 
affecting  any  of  the  high  contracting  parties  or  not, 
is  hereby  declared  a  matter  of  concern  to  the  league, 
and  the  high  contracting  parties  reserve  the  right 
to  take  any  action  that  may  be  deemed  wise  and 
effectual  to  safeguard  the  peace  of  nations. 

It  is  hereby  also  declared  and  agreed  to  be  the 
friendly  right  of  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties 
to  draw  the  attention  of  the  body  of  delegates  or 
of  the  executive  council  to  any  circumstances  affect- 
ing international  intercourse  which  threaten  to  dis- 
turb international  peace  or  the  good  understanding 
between  nations  upon  which  peace  depends. 

203 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

ARTICLE  XII 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  should 
disputes  arise  between  them  which  cannot  be  ad- 
justed by  the  ordinary  processes  of  diplomacy  they 
will  in  no  case  resort  to  war  without  previously  sub- 
mitting the  question  and  matters  involved  either 
to  arbitration  or  to  inquiry  by  the  executive  council 
and  until  three  months  after  the  award  by  the  arbi- 
trators or  a  recommendation  by  the  executive  coun- 
cil; and  that  they  will  not  even  then  resort  to  war 
as  against  a  member  of  the  league  which  complies 
with  the  award  of  the  arbitrators  or  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  executive  council. 

In  any  case  under  this  article,  the  award  of  the 
arbitrators  shall  be  made  within  a  reasonable  time, 
and  the  recommendation  of  the  executive  council 
shall  be  made  within  six  months  after  the  submis- 
sion of  the  dispute. 

ARTICLE  XIII 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  whenever 
any  dispute  or  difficulty  shall  arise  between  them 
which  they  recognize  to  be  suitable  for  submission 
to  arbitration  and  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
settled  by  diplomacy,  they  will  submit  the  whole 
matter  to  arbitration.  For  this  purpose  the  court 
of  arbitration  to  which  the  case  is  referred  shall  be 
the  court  agreed  upon  by  the  parties  or  stipulated 
in  any  convention  existing  between  them.  The 
high  contracting  parties  agree  that  they  will  carry 
out  in  full  good  faith  any  award  that  may  be  ren- 
dered. In  the  event  of  any  failure  to  carry  out  the 

204 


APPENDIX 

award,  the  executive  council  shall  propose  what  steps 
can  best  be  taken  to  give  effect  thereto. 

ARTICLE   XIV 

The  executive  council  shall  formulate  plans  for 
the  establishment  of  a  permanent  court  of  interna- 
tional justice,  and  this  court  shall,  when  established, 
be  competent  to  hear  and  determine  any  matter 
which  the  parties  recognize  as  suitable  for  submission 
to  it  for  arbitration  under  the  foregoing  article. 

ARTICLE   XV 

If  there  should  arise  between  States,  members  of 
the  league,  any  dispute  likely  to  lead  to  rupture, 
which  is  not  submitted  to  arbitration  as  above,  the 
high  contracting  parties  agree  that  they  will  refer 
the  matter  to  the  executive  council;  either  party  to 
the  dispute  may  give  notice  of  the  existence  of  the 
dispute  to  the  secretary-general,  who  will  make  all 
necessary  arrangements  for  a  full  investigation  and 
consideration  thereof.  For  this  purpose  the  parties 
agree  to  communicate  to  the  secretary-general,  as 
promptly  as  possible,  statements  of  their  case  with 
all  the  relevant  facts  and  papers,  and  the  executive 
council  may  forthwith  direct  the  publication  thereof. 

Where  the  efforts  of  the  council  lead  to  the  settle- 
ment of  the  dispute,  a  statement  shall  be  published 
indicating  the  nature  of  the  dispute  and  the  terms 
of  settlement,  together  with  such  explanations  as 
may  be  appropriate.  If  the  dispute  has  not  been 
settled,  a  report  by  the  council  shall  be  published, 
setting  forth  with  all  necessary  facts  and  explana- 
tions the  recommendation  which  the  council  thinks 
205 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

just  and  proper  for  the  settlement  of  the  dispute. 
If  the  report  is  unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council  other  than  the  parties  to  the 
dispute,  the  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  they 
will  not  go  to  war  with  any  party  which  complies 
with  the  recommendations,  and  that  if  any  party 
shall  refuse  so  to  comply  the  council  shall  propose 
measures  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  reason.  If 
no  such  unanimous  report  can  be  made,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  majority  and  the  privilege  of  the 
minority  to  issue  statements  indicating  what  they 
believe  to  be  the  facts  and  containing  the  reasons 
which  they  consider  to  be  just  and  proper. 

The  executive  council  may  in  any  case  under  this 
article  refer  the  dispute  to  the  body  of  delegates. 
The  dispute  shall  be  so  referred  at  the  request  of 
either  party  to  the  dispute,  provided  that  such  re- 
quest must  be  made  within  fourteen  days  after  the 
submission  of  the  dispute.  In  any  case  referred  to 
the  body  of  delegates  all  the  provisions  of  this  article 
and  of  article  12  relating  to  the  action  of  the  execu- 
tive council  shall  apply  to  the  action  and  powers 
of  the  body  of  delegates. 


ARTICLE   XVI 

Should  any  of  the  high  contracting  parties  break 
or  disregard  its  covenants  under  article  12  it  shall 
thereby  ipso  facto  be  deemed  to  have  committed 
an  act  of  war  against  all  the  other  members  of  the 
league,  which  hereby  undertake  immediately  to  sub- 
ject it  to. the  severance  of  all  trade  or  financial 
relations,  the  prohibition  of  all  intercourse  between 

their  nationals  and  the  nationals  of  the  covenant- 
•00 


APPENDIX 

breaking  State,  and  the  prevention  of  all  financial, 
commercial,  or  personal  intercourse  between  the 
nationals  of  the  covenant-breaking  State  and  the 
nationals  of  any  other  State,  whether  a  member 
of  the  league  or  not. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  executive  council  in 
such  cases  to  recommend  what  effective  military 
or  naval  forces  the  members  of  the  league  shall 
severally  contribute  to  the  armed  forces  to  be  used 
to  protect  the  covenants  of  the  league. 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  further  that 
they  will  mutually  support  one  another  in  the 
financial  and  economic  measures  which  may  be 
taken  under  this  article,  in  order  to  minimize  the 
loss  and  inconvenience  resulting  from  the  above 
measures,  and  that  they  will  mutually  support  one 
another  in  resisting  any  special  measures  aimed  at 
one  of  their  number  by  the  covenant-breaking 
State,  and  that  they  will  afford  passage  through  their 
territory  to  the  forces  of  any  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  who  are  co-operating  to  protect  the  cove- 
nants of  the  league. 


ARTICLE  XVII 

In  the  event  of  disputes  between  one  State  mem- 
ber of  the  league  and  another  State  which  is  not  a 
member  of  the  league,  or  between  States  not  mem- 
bers of  the  league,  the  high  contracting  parties 
agree  that  the  State  or  States  not  members  of  the 
league  shall  be  invited  to  accept  the  obligations  of 
membership  in  the  league  for  the  purposes  of  such 
dispute,  upon  such  conditions  as  the  executive 
council  may  deem  just,  and  upon  acceptance  of 

207 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

any  such  invitation  the  above  provisions  shall  be 
applied  with  such  modifications  as  may  be  deemed 
necessary  by  the  league. 

Upon  such  invitation  being  given  the  executive 
council  shall  immediately  institute  an  inquiry  into 
the  circumstances  and  merits  of  the  dispute  and 
recommend  such  action  as  may  seem  best  and  most 
effectual  in  the  circumstances. 

In  the  event  of  a  power  so  invited  refusing  to 
accept  the  obligations  of  membership  in  the  league 
for  the  purposes  of  such  dispute,  and  taking  any 
action  against  a  State  member  of  the  league  which 
in  the  case  of  a  State  member  of  the  league  would 
constitute  a  breach  of  article  12,  the  provisions  of 
article  16  shall  be  applicable  as  against  the  State 
taking  such  action. 

If  both  parties  to  the  dispute,  when  so  invited, 
refuse  to  accept  the  obligations  of  membership  in 
the  league  for  the  purposes  of  such  dispute,  the 
executive  council  may  take  such  action  and  make 
such  recommendations  as  will  prevent  hostilities 
and  will  result  in  the  settlement  of  the  dispute. 

ARTICLE  XVIII 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  league 
shall  be  intrusted  with  general  supervision  of  the 
trade  in  arms  and  ammunitions  with  the  countries 
in  which  the  control  of  this  traffic  is  necessary  and 
in  the  common  interest. 

ARTICLE  XIX 

To  those  colonies  and  territories  which  as  a 
consequence  of  the  war  have  ceased  to  be  under  the 

208 


APPENDIX 

sovereignty  of  the  States  which  formerly  governed 
them,  and  which  are  inhabited  by  peoples  not  yet 
able  to  stand  by  themselves  under  the  strenuous 
conditions  of  the  modern  world,  there  should  be 
applied  the  principle  that  the  well-being  and  de- 
velopment of  such  peoples  form  a  sacred  trust  of 
civilization  and  that  securities  for  the  performance 
of  this  trust  should  be  embodied  in  the  constitution 
of  the  league. 

The  best  method  of  giving  practical  effect  of  this 
principle  is  that  the  tutelage  of  such  people  should 
be  intrusted  to  advanced  nations  who,  by  reason 
of  their  resources,  their  experience,  or  their  geo- 
graphical position,  can  best  undertake  this  respon- 
sibility, and  that  this  tutelage  should  be  exercised 
by  them  as  mandatories  on  behalf  of  the  league. 

The  character  of  the  mandate  must  differ  accord- 
ing to  the  stage  of  the  development  of  the  people, 
the  geographical  situation  of  the  territory,  its  eco- 
nomic conditions,  and  other  similar  circumstances. 

Certain  communities  formerly  belonging  to  the 
Turkish  Empire  have  reached  a  stage  of  develop- 
ment where  their  existence  as  independent  nations 
can  be  provisionally  recognized,  subject  to  the  ren- 
dering of  administrative  advice  and  assistance  by 
a  mandatory  power  until  such  time  as  they  are  able 
to  stand  alone.  The  wishes  of  these  communities 
must  be  a  principal  consideration  in  the  selection 
of  the  mandatory  power. 

Other  peoples,  especially  those  of  Central  Africa, 
are  at  such  a  stage  that  the  mandatory  must  be 
responsible  for  the  administration  of  the  territory, 
subject  to  conditions  which  will  guarantee  freedom 
of  conscience  or  religion,  subject  only  to  the  main- 

209 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

tenance  of  public  order  and  morals,  the  prohibition 
of  abuses,  such  as  the  slave  trade,  the  arms  traffic, 
and  the  liquor  traffic,  and  the  prevention  of  the 
establishment  of  fortifications  or  military  and  naval 
bases,  and  of  military  training  of  the  natives  for 
other  than  police  purposes  and  the  defense  of  ter- 
ritory, and  will  also  secure  equal  opportunities  for 
the  trade  and  commerce  of  other  members  of  the 
league. 

There  are  territories,  such  as  southwest  Africa 
and  certain  of  the  South  Pacific  isles,  which,  owing 
to  the  sparseness  of  their  population,  or  their  small 
size,  or  their  remoteness  from  the  centers  of  civili- 
zation, or  their  geographical  continuity  to  the  man- 
datory State,  and  other  circumstances,  can  be  best 
administered  under  the  laws  of  the  mandatory 
State  as  integral  portions  thereof,  subject  to  the 
safeguards  above  mentioned  in  the  interests  of  in- 
digenous population. 

In  every  case  of  mandate  the  mandatory  State 
shall  render  to  the  league  an  annual  report  in  refer- 
ence to  the  territory  committed  to  its  charge. 

The  degree  of  authority,  control,  or  administra- 
tion to  be  exercised  by  the  mandatory  State  shall, 
if  not  previously  agreed  upon  by  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  in  each  case,  be  explicitly  de 
fined  by  the  executive  council  in  a  special  act  or 
charter. 

The  high  contracting  parties  further  agree  to 
establish  at  the  seat  of  the  league  a  mandatory 
commission  to  receive  and  examine  the  annual 
reports  of  the  mandatory  powers,  and  to  assist  the 
league  in  insuring  the  observance  of  the  terms  of 
all  mandates. 

£10 


APPENDIX 

ARTICLE  XX 

The  high  contracting  parties  will  endeavor  to 
secure  and  maintain  fair  and  humane  conditions  of 
labor  for  men,  women,  and  children,  both  in  their 
own  countries,  and  in  all  countries  to  which  their 
commercial  and  industrial  relations  extended;  and 
to  that  end  agree  to  establish  as  part  of  the  organi- 
zation of  the  league  a  permanent  bureau  of  labor. 

ARTICLE   XXI 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  provision 
shall  be  made  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
league  to  secure  and  maintain  freedom  of  transit 
and  equitable  treatment  for  the  commerce  of  all 
States  members  of  the  league,  having  in  mind, 
among  other  things,  special  arrangements  with  re- 
gard to  the  necessities  of  the  regions  devastated 
during  the  war  of  1914-1918. 

ARTICLE   XXII 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  to  place  under 
the  control  of  the  league  all  international  bureaus 
already  established  by  general  treaties  if  the  parties 
to  such  treaties  consent.  Furthermore,  they  agree 
that  all  such  international  bureaus  to  be  constituted 
in  future  shall  be  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
league. 

ARTICLE  XXIII 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  every 
treaty  or  international  engagement  entered  into 
hereafter  by  any  State  member  of  the  league  shall 
be  forthwith  registered  with  the  secretary-general 

fill 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FREE  STATES 

and  as  soon  as  possible  published  by  him,  and  that 
no  such  treaty  or  international  engagement  shall 
be  binding  until  so  registered. 


ARTICLE   XXIV 

It  shall  be  the  right  of  the  body  of  delegates  from 
time  to  time  to  advise  the  reconsideration  by  State 
members  of  the  league  of  treaties  which  have  be- 
come inapplicable  and  of  international  conditions  of 
which  the  continuance  may  endanger  the  peace  of 
the  world. 

ARTICLE  XXV 

The  high  contracting  parties  severally  agree  that 
the  present  covenant  is  accepted  as  abrogating  all 
obligations  inter  se  which  are  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  thereof,  and  solemnly  engage  that  they  will 
not  hereafter  enter  into  any  engagements  incon- 
sistent with  the  terms  thereof.  In  case  any  of  the 
powers  signatories  hereto  or  subsequently  admitted 
to  the  league  shall  before  becoming  a  party  to  this 
covenant  have  undertaken  any  obligations  which 
are  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  this  covenant,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  such  power  to  take  immediate 
steps  to  procure  its  release  from  such  obligations. 

ARTICLE  XXVI 

Amendments  to  this  covenant  will  take  effect 
when  ratified  by  the  States  whose  representatives 
compose  the  executive  council  and  by  three-fourths 
of  the  States  whose  representatives  compose  the 
body  of  delegates. 

fit 


INDEX 


Abb6  de  St.  Pierre,  24-29. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  Sec- 
retary of  State,  87. 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  Conference 
of,  in  1818,  42  to  46; 
Treaty  of,  in  1748,  59. 

Alexander  I  of  Russia,  Effect 
of  French  Revolution  on, 
34;  Czartoryski  instruc- 
tions to  Pitt,  35  to  37; 
Quadruple  Alliance,  38, 41, 
42,  49;  Holy  Alliance,  41; 
influence  of  Metternich 
on,  47. 

Alliance,  European,  12  n.; 
Holy,  41,  42,  49;  Quad- 
ruple, 38,  41,  42,  49; 
Quintuple,  44,  49;  Triple, 
49. 

Allied,  Economic  Council, 
117;  Food  Council,  117; 
Maritime  Transport  Coun- 
cil, 109-115, 117. 

Amalgamation,  by  force,  4; 
by  agreement,  4 ;  of  States, 
3,  4. 

America,  enters  war,  102; 
liberal  credits,  103;  a 
nation,  122. 


American  Addresses  at  the  Sec- 
ond Hague  Conference,  77. 

American  Mission  to  Paris  in 
1917, 103. 

Arbitration,  118, 170, 171  n., 
172;  Court  of,  12  n.,  71; 
international  61-71. 

Armaments,  161,  163,  164. 

Asquith,  Mr.,  quoted,  5,  6. 

Aumale,  Due  d',  125. 

"Balance  of  Power,"  59. 

Balch,  Thomas  Willing, 
translator  of  Emeric 
Cruce",  13  n.;  A  World 
Court  in  the  Light  of  the 
United  States  Supreme 
Court,  77. 

Balkan  States,  new  boun- 
daries, 60;  religious  free- 
dom, 61. 

Bassett,  J.  S.,  The  Lost 
Fruits  of  Waterloo,  51. 

Bazaine,  surrender,  125. 

Beard,  Ogg  and,  National 
Governments  and  the  Wufld 
War,  33. 

Bentham,  Jeremy,  plan  for 
universal  peace,  30,  31  n.. 


15 


213 


INDEX 


Berlin,  Congress  of,  1878, 53, 
60, 61. 

Bernard,  Mountague,  Lec- 
tures on  Diplomacy,  59  n. 

Berne,  Postal  Bureau  at,  90- 
92. 

Bismarck,  133;  quoted,  75. 

Bosanquet,  Bernard,  The 
Philosophical  Theory  of  the 
State,  155;  quoted,  185- 
186  n. 

Bourgeois,  M.,  on  Cove- 
nant, 158. 

Bridgman,  Raymond  L.,  The 
First  Book  of  World  Law,  98. 

Bryan,  treaties,  73,  180; 
on  draft  of  Covenant  of 
February  14,  1919,  188. 

Bryce,  Viscount  James,  on 
nationality,120,121,122n.; 
Essays  and  Addresses  in 
Wartime,  11,  135;  address 
before  British  Academy, 
151;  on  League  of  Nations, 
153. 

Bureaus,  international,  163. 

Cambridge  Modern  History, 
The,  51. 

Canada,  International  Joint 
Commission  of  the  United 
States  and,  created,  88, 89. 

Castlereagh  and  Confedera- 
tion, 40-48. 

Castlereagh,  Correspondence, 
Despatches,  and  Other 
Papers,  The,  of  Viscount, 
46  n.,  51. 


Catherine  II,  Empress, 
quoted,  37,  38. 

Cavour  at  Congress  of  Paris 
in  1856,  60. 

Cecil,  Lord  Robert,  109;  on 
Covenant,  159,  167. 

Charlemagne,  King  of  the 
Franks,  123,  124,  133. 

Chaumont,  Treaty  of,  39; 
renewal,  40,  41;  agree- 
ment, 41. 

Choate,  Joseph  H.,  on  arbi- 
tration treaties,  67;  The 
Two  Hague  Conferences, 
67  n.,  77. 

Civilization,  Western,  in  Its 
Economic  Aspects,  136. 

Clay,  Henry,  Secretary  of 
State,  87. 

Clementel,  M.  Etienne,  109. 

Coal,  arrangements  for 
French  and  Italian,  by 
Allied  Maritime  Trans- 
port Council,  114-115. 

Collins,  Sir  William,  "A 
League  of  Nations,"  33. 

Commerce,  relation  to 
world  peace,  Cruce"'s  view, 
13. 

Commercial  revolution,  13, 
127. 

Commission  Internationale 
de  Ravitaillement,  100, 
101,  102,  103. 

Commissions  of  inquiry,  in- 
ternational, 63,  71. 

Competition,  combination 
and,  Kant  on,  141,  142; 


214 


INDEX 


William  Graham  Sumner 
on,  142  n. 

Confederation  of  Europe,  34 
to  51. 

Confederation  of  Europe,  33. 

Conferences,  Hague,  69, 168, 
176. 

Conferences,  European,  from 
1648  to  1878,  60,  61;  in- 
ternational American,  69, 
70. 

Congress  of  Nations,  Essay 
on  a,  33. 

Co-operation,  118,  191;  les- 
son of,  100;  international, 
10,  159. 

Correspondence,  Despatches, 
and  Other  Papers  of  Vis- 
count Casdereagh,  The,  46 
n.,  51. 

Councils,  Economic,  117; 
Food,  117;  Maritime 
Transport,  109-113,  117. 

Court  of  Arbitration,  12  n., 
71;  independent,  170. 

Covenant,  Draft  of  Feb.  14, 
1919, 156-188;  power,  156; 
organization,  161-168;  M. 
Bourgeois  on,  158;  Body 
of  Delegates,  162,  166, 
169,  170,  173;  Executive 
Council,  162,  163,  164, 
166,  167,  169,  170,  171, 
172,  173;  Lord  Rob- 
ert Cecil  on,  159,  167; 
Secretariat,  162;  commis- 
sion on  armaments  and 
military  and  naval  ques- 


tions, 163;  Bureau  of 
Labor,  163,  165;  inter- 
national bureaus,  163; 
commission  on  colonial 
administration,  163,  165; 
handling  disputes,  168- 
175,  180,  181;  effect  on 
foreign  policy  of  United 
States,  175-187;  suggested 
amendments,  166,  170- 
171,  180-181,  181-183; 
speeches  in  U.  S.  Senate 
on,  187, 188;  text  of,  198- 
212. 

Cromer,  Earl  of,  Modern 
Egypt,  98. 

Cruc6,  Emeric,  peace  plans, 
12-17,  190. 

Cummins,  Senator,  quoted, 
82,  83. 

Cunningham,  W.,  Western 
Civilization  in  its  Economic 
Aspects,  136. 

Customs  and  bounties,  in- 
ternational adjustment, 
93-95. 

Cyn6e,  Le  Nouveau,  Cruets, 
12;  translated,  12-13  n. 

Czar  of  Russia  and  Hague 
Conference,  63,  69. 

Czartoryski  Memorandum, 
35,  37. 

Czartoryski,  Prince  Adam, 
and  His  Correspondence 
with  Alexander  I,  51. 


Dante,   universal   Christian* 
empire,  12  n. 


215 


INDEX 


Danube,  European  Com- 
mission of,  85,  86,  98. 

Darby,  W.  E.,  International 
Tribunals,  30  n.,  31  n., 
32  n.,  33. 

Dawn  of  Italian  Indepen- 
dence, 129  n. 

De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pads,  Hugo 
Grotius,  56. 

Design,  The  Great,  of  Henry 
IV,  17-20,  24,  31,  32. 

Dickinson,  G.  Lowes,  The 
European  Anarchy, '11. 

Disputes,  settlement  of,  3, 
137,  190;  by  arbitration, 
62,  63. 

Dominian,  Leon,  The  Fron- 
tiers of  Language  and 
Nationality  in  Europe,  136. 

Dubois,  Pierre,  Court  of 
Arbitration,  12  n. 

Empire,  Holy  Roman,  break- 
up, 2. 

England  and  nationality, 
125,  126. 

Essay  on  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  33. 

Essays  and  Addresses  in 
Wartime,  11,  135. 

"Eternal  Peace,"  Kant  on, 
52. 

Europe  Since  1815,  51. 

Europe,  The  Confederation 
of,  33,  38,  51. 

European  Anarchy,  The,  11. 

Expenses  of  Permanent  Bu- 
reau of  Postal  Union,  92, 


93;  adopted  for  expenses 

of  Secretariat,  156. 
"European  Commission  of 

the  Danube,  The,"  98. 
Experiments  in  International 

Administration,  98. 

Factors  in  Modern  History, 

136. 

Feudal  system,  122, 123, 125. 
First  Book  of  World  Law, 

The,  98. 
First  Hague  Conference,  The, 

77. 
Fleury,  Cardinal,  on  peace 

plans,  29. 

Food  Council,  110, 117;  exec- 
utive department,  113. 
Foreign       policy,       United 

States,  176-187. 
Foreign     Policy,     President 

Wilson's,  10. 
France,  history  of,  123,  124, 

125;  and  nationality,  123, 

125. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  quoted, 

195. 

French  Revolution,  127. 
Frontiers  of  Language   and 

Nationality  in  Europe,  136. 
Future     of     Constantinople, 

The,  98. 

General  Postal  Union,  90. 
George,  Lloyd,  on  League 

of  Nations,  7. 
Germany    and    nationality, 


128. 


216 


INDEX 


Germany,  crushing  defeat, 
6;  violated  treaties,  74; 
submarine  campaign,  100. 

Gibbons,  H.  A.,  The  New 
Map  of  Europe,  130  n. 

Gompers,  Samuel,  on 
League  of  Nations,  7. 

Gore,  Commissioner,  com- 
ment on  Jay  Treaty,  89. 

Great  Britain,  supplies  and 
credit,  101. 

Green,  Thomas  Hill,  on 
national  unity,  119;  Lec- 
tures on  the  Principles  of 
Political  Obligation,  154. 

Grotius,  Hugo,  on  inter- 
national law,  55-58,  80; 
Sir  Frederick  Pollock  on 
work  of,  56,  57;  Andrew 
D.  White  at  tomb  of,  56. 

Hague  Conference,  first,  52, 
56,  63,  66,  67,  68,  69,  71; 
second,  64,  66,  67,  68,  69, 
71,  168;  third,  69. 

Hague  Court  Reports,  The, 
77. 

Hague  Peace  Conference  and 
Other  International  Con- 
ferences, The,  77. 

Hague  Peace  Conferences: 
American  Instructions  and 
Reports,  77. 

Hale,  Edward  Everett,  be- 
lief in  Great  Design,  31. 

Hamilton,Alexander,quoted, 
195,  196. 

Hapsburg  Dynasty,  127, 128. 


Hazen,  C.  D.,  Europe  Since 
1815,  51. 

Henry  IV,  Great  Design  of, 
17-20,  24,  31,  32;  peace 
plans,  17-20, 31, 32;  death, 
20,  31. 

Henry  IV,  The  Great  Design 
of,  17  n. 

Hertslet,  Edward  Cecil, 
The  Map  of  Europe  by 
Treaty,  41  n. 

Hertslet,  Lewis,  Sir  Edward 
and  Edward  Cecil,  British 
and  Foreign  State  Papers 
(London,  1841),  39  n. 

Hides  and  Leather  Execu- 
tive, 113. 

Higgins,  A.  Pearce,  The 
Hague  Peace  Conference 
and  Other  International 
Conferences,  77. 

Hill,  David  Jayne,  A  His- 
tory of  European  Diplo- 
macy, 76;  World  Organi- 
zation as  Affected  by  the 
Nature  of  the  Modern  State, 
72  n.,  76, 135;  on  arbitra- 
tion, 71,  72;  on  Peace  of 
Westphalia,  58;  quoted, 
150  n.;  The  Rebuilding  of 
Europe,  154. 

History  and  Digest  of  In- 
ternational Arbitrations, 11. 

History  of  European  Diplo- 
macy, A,  76. 

History  of  Italian  Unity,  A, 
129  n. 

Holland  and  nationality,  126. 


217 


INDEX 


Holls,  Frederick  W.,  The 
Peace  Conference  at  The 
Hague,  77;  at  Hague  Con- 
ference, 52. 

Holy  Alliance,  41,  42,  49. 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  2. 

Honor,  questions  of  national, 
71-73. 

Hubertusburg,  Treaty  of,  in 
1763,  59. 

Hull,  William  I.,  The  Two 
Hague  Conferences,  77. 

Immanuel  Kant,  154. 

Independence,  questions  of 
national,  71-73. 

Inquiry,  Commissions  of,  71. 

Instinct,  reason  and,  Kant's 
analysis,  140,  141. 

Instructions  to  Hague  dele- 
gates, 168,  171  n. 

Inter-Allied,  Conference  of 
1917, 103-107;  Council  on 
War  Purchases  and  Fi- 
nance, 103. 

International  Government,  98. 

International  Law,  defined, 
53-55;  Lord  Parker  on, 
54;  Sir  Henry  Sumner 
Maine  on,  55;  Grotius 
and  other  writers  on,  56, 
57;  vindication  of,  74; 
President  Wilson  on,  76. 

International,  peace,  Russia 
seeking,  8;  co-operation, 
9,  10,  15;  machinery, 
10;  commerce  and  world 
peace,  13;  meetings,  59; 


American  conferences,  69, 
70;  arbitration,  61-73; 
organizations,  81,  82;  riv- 
ers, 83-89;  Joint  Com- 
mission of  the  United 
States  and  Canada,  88, 
89;  post,  90-93;  marine 
conference,  95;  sugar  con- 
ventions, 95  ;  disputes,  137; 
bureaus,  163;  duties,  184. 

International  Tribunals,  30  n. , 
31  n.,  33. 

International  Union  of  the 
Hague  Conferences,  The,  77. 

Italy  and  nationality,  128, 
129. 

Jay  Treaty,  1794,  62. 

Kant,  Immanuel,  Perpetual 
Peace,  33,  52,  146  n.,  154; 
essays,  138;  plan  for  peace, 
139-149. 

King,  B.,  History  of  Italian 
Unity,  A,  129  n. 

Knox,  Secretary,  drafting  of 
treaties,  72. 

Krehbiel,  E.  B.,  "The  Euro- 
pean Commission  of  the 
Danube,"  Nationalism, 
War  and  Society,  98. 

Ladd,  William,  Essay,  on  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  33. 

Language,  The  Frontiers  of, 
and  Nationality  in  Europe, 
136. 

Lasting  Peace,  A,  34  n.,  79  n. 


218 


INDEX 


League  of  Nations,  A,  10, 
33. 

League  of  Nations,  Presi- 
dent Wilson  on,  5,  8;  La- 
bor war  aims,  7,  8;  Com- 
mittee of  Peace  Confer- 
ence on  the,  192. 

League  of  Nations  and  Its 
Problems,  The,  33. 

League  of  Nations  in  History, 
The,  33. 

Lectures  on  Diplomacy,  59  n. 

Lectures  on  the  Principles  of 
Political  Obligation,  154. 

Leibnitz,  on  peace  project, 
30. 

Life  and  Times  of  Cavour, 
The,  129  n. 

Lodge,  Senator,  on  Monroe 
Doctrine,  177;  on  draft  of 
Covenant  of  February  14, 
1919, 188. 

Lorraine,  124. 

Lost  Fruits  of  Waterloo,  The, 
51. 

Lowell,  President,  Public 
Opinion  and  Popular  Gov- 
ernment, 130;  on  draft  of 
Covenant  of  February  14, 
1919,  188. 

Lloyd  George  on  League  of 
Nations,  7. 

Ludendorff,  quoted,  74,  75. 

Mahan,  Captain,  and 
Monroe  Doctrine,  67,  68. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry  Sumner, 
on  international  law,  55. 


Map  of  Europe  by  Treaty, 
The,  41  n. 

Marine  Conference,  Inter- 
national, 95. 

Marini,  Antoine,  federation 
of  Christian  States,  12  n. 

Maritime,  Regulations,  95- 
98;  Transport  Council, 
109-115,  117. 

Mediation,  62,  71,  171  n. 

Memoirs  of  Prince  Adam 
Czartoryski  and  His  Cor- 
respondence with  Alexan- 
der I,  The,  51. 

Mission,  American,  to  Paris 
in  1917, 103. 

Modern  Egypt,  98. 

Monarchia,  De,  12  n. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  49,  67,  68, 
176,  177. 

Moore,  John  Bassett,  "The 
Peace  Problem,"  33;  on 
arbitration,  62;  The  Prin- 
ciples of  American  Diplo- 
macy, 77;  History  and 
Digest  of  International  Ar- 
bitrations, 67  n.,  77. 

Muir,  Ramsay,  Nationalism 
and  Internationalism,  33, 
135. 

Munitions,  99;  council,  110. 

Miinster  Conference,  53; 
Treaty  of,  58. 

Napoleonic  Wars,  127, 128. 
Nation-building,  123-131. 
National  Governments  and  the 
World  War,  33. 


219 


INDEX 


National,  States,  121-129; 
development,  123, 129;  as- 
pirations, 129;  indepen- 
dence, 135;  Society  of 
States,  154. 

Nationalism  and  Internation- 
alism, 33,  135. 

Nationalism,  War  and  So- 
ciety, 98. 

Nationality  and  Government, 
135. 

Nationality  and  the  War,  131 
n.,  135. 

Nationality  in  Europe,  The 
Frontiers  of  Language  and, 
136. 

Nationality  in  Modern  His- 
tory, 33,  135. 

Nationality,  principle  of, 
119-135;  spirit  of,  138, 
191,  192. 

New  Map  of  Europe,  The, 
130  n. 

Nitrate  Executive,  113. 

Obligation,  Lectures  on  the 
Principles  of  Political,  154. 

Ogg  and  Beard,  National 
Governments  and  the  World 
War,  33. 

Oppenheim,  L.,  The  League 
of  Nations  and  Its  Prob- 
lems, 33. 

Osnabriick,  Conference,  53; 
Treaty  of,  1684,  58. 


Paris,  Conference,  1763,  53; 
Congress  of,  in  1856,  60; 


treaties  of,  39,  40,  42, 
44,  50,  51,  59,  84,  85. 

Paris  Conference,  1917,  103. 

Parker,  Lord,  on  interna- 
tional law,  54. 

Paulsen,  Frederick,  Imman- 
uel  Kant,  154. 

Peace,  by  force,  2, 184;  qual- 
ified under  Church,  2;  per- 
petual, 9,  12-32;  Roman, 
135;  of  justice,  184. 

Peace  Conference,  1919, 117, 
131,  133,  134,  135,  138, 
149,  150,  154,  156,  158, 
160;  speeches  by  members 
of,  187,  188. 

Peace  Conference  at  The 
Hague,  The,  77. 

"Peace  Problem,  The,"  33. 

Penn,  William,  essay  on 
peace,  20,  52;  peace  plan, 
21-24;  quoted,  145  n,;  on 
war,  190. 

Perpetual  Peace,  9, 12-32. 

Perpetual  Peace,  33, 52,146n., 
154. 

Philip  Augustus,  124. 

Phillimore,  W.  G.  F.,  Three 
Centuries  of  Treaties  of 
Peace,  76. 

Phillips,  Walter  Alison,  The 
Confederation  of  Europe, 
33,  38,  51. 

Philosophical  Theory  of  the 
State,  The,  155. 

Piersoon,  Mr.,  on  arbitra- 
tion plan,  64. 

Plan  for  universal  peace,  30. 


220 


INDEX 


Plans  for  Americanization, 

191. 
Pollard,  A.  F.,  The  League 

of  Nations  in  History,  33, 

51 ;  Factors  in  Modern  His- 
tory, 136. 
Pollock,   Sir  Frederick,   on 

work  of  Grotius,  56,  57. 
Post,  international  90-93. 
Postal  Bureau  at  Berne,  92. 
Postal     Union,     Universal, 

156,  165,  183. 
"Power,  Balance  of,"  59. 
Powers,  reactionary,  47,  49. 
Precop  of  Tartary,  14, 17. 
President    Wilson's   Foreign 

Policy,  10. 
Prester  John,  14,  17. 
Principle  of  Nationality,  The, 

135. 
Principles      of      American 

Diplomacy,   The,  77. 
Prize  Court,  International, 

65,  66. 
Problem  of  an  International 

Court  of  Justice,  77. 
Program    committees,    101, 

109-113,  117. 
Prussia,   belief  in   methods 

of  force,  5. 
Public  International  Unions, 

Their  Work  and  Organiza- 
tion, 98. 
Public  Opinion  and  Popular 

Government,  130. 


Quadruple  Alliance,  38,  41, 

42,  49. 


Quintuple  Alliance,  44,  49. 

Ravitaillement,  Commission 
Internationale  de,  100, 101, 
102,  103. 

Rebuilding  of  Europe,  The, 
154. 

Reason,  instinct  and,  Kant's 
analysis,  140,  141. 

Recreating  Europe,  131, 132. 

Reinsch,  Paul  S.,  on  non- 
governmental agencies, 
81 ;  Public  International 
Unions,  Their  Work  and 
Organization,  98. 

Reports  to  the  Hague  Con- 
ferences of  1899  and  1907, 
77. 

Revolution,  commercial,  13, 
127;  French,  127. 

Rhine,  international  man- 
agement, 50;  courts,  84. 

Ritchie,  D.  G.,  Studies  in 
Political  and  Social  Ethics, 
155. 

Rivers,  international,  83-89. 

Roman  Empire,  2;  breaking 
up,  122. 

Roman  Peace,  135. 

Roosevelt,  President,  and 
the  Hague  Conference,  65, 
69;  on  Monroe  Doctrine, 
176. 

Root,  Elihu,  instructions 
to  Hague  delegates,  168, 
171  n. 

Rose,  J.  H.,  Nationality  in 
Modern  History,  33;  WU- 


221 


INDEX 


liam  Pitt  and  National 
Revival;  William  Pitt  and 
the  Great  War,  51. 

Rousseau,  J.  J.,  on  peace 
project,  30,  31;  perpetual 
peace,  34;  A  Lasting  Peace, 
30  n.,  34  n.,  78,  79  n. 

Royce,  Josiah,  The  Spirit  of 
Modern  Philosophy,  154. 

Ruyssen,  Theodore,  The 
Principle  of  Nationality, 
135. 

Salter,  J.  A.,  British  Minis- 
ter of  Shipping,  117  n. 

Sancte,  De  Recuperatione 
Terre,  12  n. 

Sayre,  Francis  Bowes,  Ex- 
periments in  International 
Administration,  98. 

Schiicking,  Walther,  The  In- 
ternational Union  of  the 
Hague  Conferences,  77. 

Scott,  James  Brown,  Reports 
to  the  Hague  Conferences 
of  1899  and  1907,  77; 
Hague  Peace  Conferences; 
American  Instructions  and 
Reports,  77;  The  Status  of 
the  International  Court  of 
Justice,  77;  American  Ad- 
dresses at  the  Second  Hague 
Conference,  77;  The  Hague 
Court  Reports,  77. 

Self-determination  rule,  dif- 
ficulty of  application,  130- 
132. 

Seton-Watson,  R.  W.,  et  a/., 


The  War  and  Democracy, 

136. 
Society  of  States,  178,  179, 

180,  184,  193,  194. 
Spanish    Succession,    Wars 

of,  58. 
Spirit  of  Modern  Philosophy, 

154. 
State,      The      Philosophical 

Theory  of  the,  155. 
State-Sovereignty,  184. 
States,  amalgamation,  3,  4, 

5;  national,  121, 122,  123, 

127, 128,  129;    of  Europe 

started   anew,    134,   135; 

Society  of,  178,  179,  180, 

184. 
Status  of  International  Court 

of  Justice,  77. 
Studies  in  Political  and  Social 

Ethics,  155. 
St.   Pierre,   Abb6  de,   plan 

for  perpetual  peace,   24- 

29. 

Sugar  commission,  perma- 
nent, 93,  94;  International 

Convention,  95. 
Sully,  Duke  of,  memoirs,  17, 

52. 

Sumner,  Prof.  William  Gra- 
ham, quoted,  142  n.; 

"War,"  10. 

Taft,  President,  on  League 
of  Nations,  7;  treaties  with 
France  and  England,  72, 
73 ;  on  proposed  Covenant, 
176,  183,  188. 


222 


INDEX 


Tawney,  James  A.,  state- 
ment by,  89. 

Territorial  independence, 
119. 

Thayer,  W.  R.,  The  Dawn  of 
Italian  Independence;  The 
Life  and  Times  of  Cavour, 
129  n. 

Theory  of  the  State,  The 
Philosophical,  155. 

Three  Centuries  of  Treaties 
of  Peace,  76. 

Tonnage,  allocation,  102, 104, 
105,  108. 

Towards  the  Present  and  Fut- 
ure Peace  of  Europe,  20. 

Toynbee,  Arnold  J.,  Nation- 
ality and  the  War,  131  n., 
135. 

Transport  Council,  Allied 
Maritime,  109-115,  117. 

Treaties :  Aix-la-Chapelle,  59 ; 
Bryan,  73, 180;  Hubertus- 
burg,  59;  Jay,  62;  Mini- 
ster, 58;  Osnabriick,  58; 
Paris,  42,  44,  50,  51,  59, 
84,  85;  Utrecht,  58;  Ver- 
sailles, 59;  Vienna,  42,  44, 
49;  Westphalia,  133,  134. 

Treaties  of  Peace,  Three  Cen- 
turies of,  76. 

Triple  Alliance,  49. 

Troppau,  Protocol  of,  47. 

Two  Hague  Conferences,  The, 
67  n.,  77. 


Unanimity     in     voting    re- 
quired in  Allied  Maritime 


Transport  Council  and 
Program  Committees,  115, 
116;  required  in  interna- 
tional conferences,  167. 

Unions,  international,  81, 
82;  General  Postal,  90. 

United  States,  foreign  policy, 
176-187. 

Universal,  Christian  empire, 
12  n.;  guarantees,  41,  42, 
43,  44;  Postal  Union,  90, 
91,  137,  156,  165,  183. 

Utrecht,  Conference,  1713, 
53;  Treaty  of,  58. 

Versailles,  Treaty  of,  1783, 
59. 

Vienna,  Congress  of,  1815, 
53,  59,  61,  84,  86,  87; 
Treaty  of,  42,  44,  49. 

Vital  interest,  questions  of, 
71-73. 

Voting  power,  in  William 
Penn's  plan,  22,  23;  under 
American  Articles  of  Con- 
federation on,  23  n. ;  under 
the  Abb6  de  St.  Pierre's 
plan,  24-30;  under  the 
draft  of  Covenant  of 
February  14,  1919,  166- 
168. 

War,  causes,  2-6,  141-143, 
148;  aims,  6-8;  "duels 
of  princes,"  190. 

War  and  Democracy,  The, 
136. 

War  and  Other  Essays,  10. 


223 


INDEX 


Wehberg,  Hans,  The  Prob- 
lem of  an  International 
Court  of  Justice,  77. 

Western  Civilization  in  Its 
Economic  Aspects,  136. 

Westphalia,  Peace  of,  in 
1684,  58,  133,  134. 

Wheat  Executive,  102,  113. 

White,  Andrew  D.,  ambassa- 
dor, 64;  at  tomb  of  Gro- 
tius,  56;  autobiography, 
67,  68;  The  First  Hague 
Conference,  77. 

Wickersham,  Geo.  W.,  on 
draft  of  Covenant  of  Feb- 
ruary 14,  1919,  188. 

Wilson,  President,  on  inter- 
national law,  76;  quoted, 
178,  179,  185,  186. 


Wilson's,  President,  Foreign 
Policy,  10. 

William  Pitt  and  National 
Revival;  William  Pitt  and 
the  Great  War,  51. 

Woolf,  Leonard  S.,  Inter- 
national Government;  The 
Future  of  Constantinople, 
98. 

World  Court  in  the  Light  of 
the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  A,  77. 

World  Organization  as  Af- 
fected by  the  Nature  of  the 
Modern  State,  135. 

World-State,  156,  157,  184. 

Zimmern,  A.  E.,  Nationality 
and  Government,  135. 


THE   END 


A     000684131     6 


